On Sun, 2010-04-11 at 18:49 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:14:33 +0200, Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net wrote:
There were a number of cases where breakage wasn't fixed for days
because nobody else was allowed to push the fixes.
This is good feedback, thanks. Can you
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 09:30:47 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
First off, I'd like to get a start on making things easier to build
for people interested in testing the server or new drivers. I'm still
interested in getting drivers pulled back into the server itself at some
point, but it seems
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:49:56 -0700
Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:14:33 +0200, Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net wrote:
This seems inconsistent with the usage of this tag in the Linux kernel
development process. If we're going to continue shoehorning our
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:30 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
First off, thanks to everyone involved in the 1.8 release; it was a
pleasure to work with you. I'm hoping everyone else is as happy as I am
about our new release process, it seemed to me that we saw a lot more
active review and
2010/4/12 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:30 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
First off, thanks to everyone involved in the 1.8 release; it was a
pleasure to work with you. I'm hoping everyone else is as happy as I am
about our new release process, it seemed to me that we
2010/4/11 Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net:
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:30 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
First off, thanks to everyone involved in the 1.8 release; it was a
pleasure to work with you. I'm hoping everyone else is as happy as I am
about our new release process, it seemed to me that we
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:14:33 +0200, Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net wrote:
There were a number of cases where breakage wasn't fixed for days
because nobody else was allowed to push the fixes.
This is good feedback, thanks. Can you point out specific cases and we
can figure out what went
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:02:27 +1000, Dave Airlie airl...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd have to agree here, I think we need to do 1.9 following the same
process again and refine it a lot more.
Yeah, developing the release process is almost as hard as developing the
code.
Keith there were large stages
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 06:49:56PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:14:33 +0200, Michel Dänzer mic...@daenzer.net wrote:
There were a number of cases where breakage wasn't fixed for days
because nobody else was allowed to push the fixes.
This is good feedback, thanks.
2010/4/11 Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:02:27 +1000, Dave Airlie airl...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd have to agree here, I think we need to do 1.9 following the same
process again and refine it a lot more.
Yeah, developing the release process is almost as hard as
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 20:50:28 -0700
Stephane Marchesin stephane.marche...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 20:44, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:02:20PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On the flip side, unless we have a decent set of video and input
Alex Deucher wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
It's a numbers game. How many contributors and testers will I lose or gain
compared to the hours of work spent? Until the server is a lot easier to
build from scratch, I think the numbers
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Alan Coopersmith
alan.coopersm...@oracle.com wrote:
Alex Deucher wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
It's a numbers game. How many contributors and testers will I lose or gain
compared to the hours of work
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:30:47AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
First off, thanks to everyone involved in the 1.8 release; it was a
pleasure to work with you. I'm hoping everyone else is as happy as I am
about our new release process, it seemed to me that we saw a lot more
active review and
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Peter Hutterer
peter.hutte...@who-t.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:30:47AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
First off, thanks to everyone involved in the 1.8 release; it was a
pleasure to work with you. I'm hoping everyone else is as happy as I am
about our
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 16:29:13 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
From the input drivers POV merging them in provides little benefit as of yet
and would probably be even detrimental to testing.
Yeah, we keep comparing the X server to the kernel and we really need to
understand
On Apr 7, 2010, at 10:46, Keith Packard wrote:
Something that might help here is to publish the list of subsystems and
who is the maintainer in charge of them. That should be in the project
tree itself so that anyone can find the right person.
It already is...
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 10:46:11AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
And, X has external dependencies which aren't going to be
integrated -- libdrm and Mesa.
Why not? The license issues do not seem unmanageable, so what else is
there?
OG.
___
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 06:33:25AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Peter Hutterer
peter.hutte...@who-t.net wrote:
I'm just replying here so we've got my opinion public and archived rather
than spread across several IRC conversations.
From the input drivers
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net wrote:
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 06:33:25AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Peter Hutterer
peter.hutte...@who-t.net wrote:
I'm just replying here so we've got my opinion public and archived
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:32:32 -0400
Alex Deucher alexdeuc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 06:33:25AM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Peter Hutterer
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:32:32 -0400, Alex Deucher alexdeuc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
It's a numbers game. How many contributors and testers will I lose or gain
compared to the hours of work spent? Until the server is a
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:02:20PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On the flip side, unless we have a decent set of video and input
drivers included in the server, building and testing a new one will
always be a bit painful.
Sure, but on the flip-flip side, and it's hard to say this without
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 20:44, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 05:02:20PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On the flip side, unless we have a decent set of video and input
drivers included in the server, building and testing a new one will
always be a bit painful.
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:30:47AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
Beyond that, one requirement that I see for merging output drivers would
be to shorten the X server release from the current 6 months down to 3
months or so. Otherwise I feel that the window of time between hardware
release and
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 04:47:13 +1000, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
Er, is there no reason hardware enable (even if it's not entirely
fully-featured) can't be done in point releases?
Nope, and perhaps that's what 'ABI/API stable odd releases' should mean?
Does mean more non-trivial
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:43:01 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston
jerem...@freedesktop.org wrote:
I think a 3-month major-release cycle will be very taxing, especially
considering the increased codebase with drivers.
We're doing 3 month releases with the intel drivers today; it's working
out pretty
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 04:47:13 +1000, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
Er, is there no reason hardware enable (even if it's not entirely
fully-featured) can't be done in point releases?
On second thought, this would require additional work for driver
developers who would also need to
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:30:47AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
First off, thanks to everyone involved in the 1.8 release; it was a
pleasure to work with you. I'm hoping everyone else is as happy as I am
about our new release process, it seemed to me that we saw a lot more
active review and
29 matches
Mail list logo
