On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> On 2016.10.20 11:24:21 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:02:54PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> > * GVT-g bug management. Do you have something set up already? Would be
>> > great to be able to use
On 2016.10.20 11:01:02 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 05:42:37PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> > On 2016.10.20 11:24:21 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:02:54PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We need to formalize the process between i915
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 05:42:37PM +0800, Zhenyu Wang wrote:
> On 2016.10.20 11:24:21 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:02:54PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > >
> > > We need to formalize the process between i915 proper and GVT-g a bit
> > > more, and address some of the
On 2016.10.20 11:24:21 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:02:54PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >
> > We need to formalize the process between i915 proper and GVT-g a bit
> > more, and address some of the current shortcomings and issues in the
> > process and GVT-g CI.
> >
>
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:02:54PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>
> We need to formalize the process between i915 proper and GVT-g a bit
> more, and address some of the current shortcomings and issues in the
> process and GVT-g CI.
>
> This started off internally as a random list of items, I'm
We need to formalize the process between i915 proper and GVT-g a bit
more, and address some of the current shortcomings and issues in the
process and GVT-g CI.
This started off internally as a random list of items, I'm including
some of the current status as well. Please comment, as some of the