: 031d00676b0263beafba0b26060e49bf7ba52791
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/releases/individual/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd-1.2.3.tar.gz
MD5: ab80697ad0b7a064137ebce4076465fb
SHA1: b7b09d56fb865b9d44d1f8b9b3dda8e6e60d4d95
Luc Verhaegen.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Oct 21 16:55:44 2008 +0100
>
> xorg.modules: Drop radeonhd
>
> We already have a Radeon driver.
Once again, a very unbiased opinion by Mr Stone.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:08:49PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 08:57:03AM -0700, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > xorg.modules |7 ---
> > 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > New commits:
> > commit aa066db9fe03e39156ebd2416aea25ac
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:15:58PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > Is there a single technical reason why shipping both is a problem?
>
> It increases support load without any significant improvement in
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:16:18PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:08:49PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >
> > Once again, a very unbiased opinion by Mr Stone.
>
> I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but thanks.
This isn&
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:25:45PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:31:49PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:17:06PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:15:58PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> &g
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:36:49PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:16:18PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:08:49PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > >
> > > Once again, a very unbiased opinion
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:48:05PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:40:08PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > It's also remarkable how this was dropped from this list initially.
> >
> > You didn't even bother to contact any of the very active a
oad to a
"full time triager" is negligible.
Luc Verhaegen.
SUSE X Driver Developer.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:51:45AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:15 +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > Is there a single technical reason why shipping both is a problem?
>
> For the same reason the kernel avoids shipping multiple drivers for the
> sam
is based on the CS
infrastructure. Only 3 files are active copies; radeon_3d.c,
radeon_exa_render.c and radeon_textured_videofuncs.c; all contain very
R5xx specific code.
> > So what stops it from being shipped as well?
> >
> > Nothing. Just you.
>
>
Luc Verhaegen.
SU
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 03:00:49PM -0700, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:16:18PM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 06:15:58PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >>> Is there a single technical reason
calendars, and start looking into travel options while they are
still cheap :)
Thanks, and hope to hear from you soon.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
a
> suitably permissive license. The preferred code license is the MIT
> license; the canonical form of the MIT license is here: [ insert link to
> version with generic "THE AUTHORS" rather than explicit author names ].
http://www.opensource.org/licenses
>
> Default to x86emu even on i386 linux
>
> vm86 mode is a bad idea anyway, and using the emulator everywhere
> means we get a consistent set of bugs.
What triggered this choice, where was this discussed?
Luc Verhaegen.
freedesktop.org/msg02622.html
Thanks and happy new year to all,
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
(deliberately breaking thread to get more attention :), and yes,
diseased mind.)
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 06:19:26PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> With FOSDEM moved 3 weeks earlier than usual, i no longer have the best
> part of January to leisurely beg around for spea
x 6) talk slots still available, with a room like this, we
better fill them up :)
Thanks,
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
friday night to tell
me about it still :)
Thanks,
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Hi Everyone,
Final announcement about our DevRoom this year (promise) :)
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/fosdem2009
All the info you need is either on there or on the fosdem main site.
Hope to see many people there,
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg
not get this. Of course, it could be that
for many generations, this was not tested properly and that therefor
older hw might not work properly or might need special workarounds or
that atombios does not help you to set this up.
I believe that nvidia did the legwork at the dix sid
(you guessed it) wiki:
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/fosdem2010
Also, i am once again tempted to reserve some seats at the smashingly
excellent belgian restaurant the Mirabelle on saturday evening, so
please drop me a note if you would like to join.
See you all there!
Luc Verhaegen
planet, then please get me your
name, the talk title and a small abstract for a talk ASAP.
Thanks.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/fosdem2010
The current schedule (as it will be printed in the booklet too):
* 10.00: ...
* 11.00: ...
* 12.00: ...
* 13.00: Daniel Stone : Polishing X11 and making it shiny.
* 14.00: Luc Verhaegen : The free software desktop’s graphics driver
stack.
* 15.00: Jerome Glisse
ting us know how much
> it will cost will improve response time to any request, now that time is
> getting
> tight. No promises we'll say yes, but the odds are much higher if you ask
> than
> if you don't.)
It is not a money thing here. People just cannot be bo
ees here. It would be nice to know what happens when all three
have been voted to the board.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
he bottom of the linked http://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/Elections
> page it states:
>
> Both that page and the candidates statement page are also linked to from the
> ballot screen.
Ah, thanks for the explanation and for blending in the current
affi
present the X.org foundation members
interests in the future, if we have absolutely no insight as to what has
happened in the past?
Is there any chance that this important information becomes available to
the X.org Foundation members still?
Thanks,
Luc Verhaegen.
[1]
http://www.x.org/wiki/
All of these things seem to be easy to fix, without much in the way of
overhead. Why were none of these things thought of directly?
I am the first person to think of this, because that's just who i am.
Since then I have heard of several others who confirmed my sentiments.
If someone needs help splitting his board meeting irc logs, i will be
happy to lend a hand. I am sure that many who, like me, still need to
vote will be happy to have a scroll through them, before making their
decision.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
much more than what you already know.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
It will at least give us an idea as to why we are voting at all.
Currently we have absolutely nothing to go by.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http
my head. I could be and am
> > probably wrong on some of the details. This does not represent an
> > official statement on behalf of the Foundation, etc, etc.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 06:31:32PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >
> >> The X.org Found
oundation. Please feel
> free to contact me or any other Board Member at any time if
> you want further information.
>
> Bart Massey
There simply is insufficient insight atm, it is not just a feeling.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:01:11PM -0800, Stuart Kreitman wrote:
> On 02/10/10 03:43 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 03:17:16PM -0800, Stuart Kreitman wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/10/10 11:47 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
>>>
>>>> (tl;dr:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:26:15PM -0800, Stuart Kreitman wrote:
> On 02/10/10 05:14 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> Like last year, there are no FOSDEM costs. After some questions were
>> raised about the social event, I decided to also forgo asking X.org
>> sponsor
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:48:48AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 03:22:12PM -0800, Barton C Massey wrote:
> > In message <20100210173132.gb3...@skynet.be> you wrote:
> > > This is what the bylaws state: "The Board shall keep
> > > min
f £20 per head.
>
> We haven't managed even that in the last couple of years.
>
> --
> keith.pack...@intel.com
Can we get some more details here please? Alanc also mentioned ssl
certificates, FOSDEM 2010 and Videohackfest from the top of his head.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 07:26:35AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:21:28 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > Can we get some more details here please? Alanc also mentioned ssl
> > certificates, FOSDEM 2010 and Videohackfest from the top of his head.
>
d (backup etc.).
> >
> > Seems pretty extrodinary. Exactly what can't say bluehost provide at
> > $3.95 a month that MIT can at $250/month ?
>
> In fairness, I believe there are four machines currently racked up, even
> if three of them are doing nothin
imply empty. Was there no
board meeting whatsoever? This is strange as, according to the above
email i would've expected a meeting between 23:00 and 0:00 CET.
I guess that in such a case, noone will have any issues with me posting
the log, both here and on the wiki.
Luc Verhaegen.
17:4
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:29:04PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 02:02:21PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >> Daniel Stone wrote:
> >>> #xorg-bod on OFTC, fortnightly. I think it's something like 10AM
> &
alter their vote? Is there anyone here who
thinks that he has not enough information available today to be able to
vote at all?
Thanks,
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 08:26:30AM -0800, Carl Worth wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:44:11 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Since voting is officially ending today I have cast my votes just now...
>
> Hi Luc,
>
> I'm glad that you brought some concerns forward.
>
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 05:29:14PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 06:01:38PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >
> > I believe some things have been asked for already:
> > * minutes or logs.
>
> Bart is collating his logs, a
ekend too.
Don't take any of this personal, what i write are just honest and direct
answers to your reasoning before.
I appreciate the fact that you admit that you are unable to perform the
duties that one would expect a member of the board of directors to
perform. This is a bold a
than at the time of annual election.)
>
> -Carl
Timely, heh...
The elections were one month late according to the latest updated
schedule. Right in the middle of FOSDEM preparations too, which i think
is a valid excuse from my side for not being able to respond earlier.
As brought u
he members to beg for this information at all.
Please do not try to inverse the logic here.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
terprise linux distributors and other enterprise service providers see
what sort of big clients, who are now investing a ton of money and
manpower in a windows based solution, they just lost out on.
Richard, who provided you with support before? As i doubt that such a
move means that everything was done in-house before.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 08:25:12PM -0500, Richard Brown wrote:
>
> I do apologise for the tone of my original letter. We will be staying
> with X in the future and we will not be moving to another platform.
Your large corporation certainly has a lightning fast decision making
proc
nd at :
http://people.freedesktop.org/~libv/BOD/
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg mailing list
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
etting up a new mailing list
> for those who are interested to subscribe. ( board-disc...@x.org? )
members@ is basically a dead list, except around elections. I personally
am all for re-using it. Also, an archive of the ml would be handy too.
Thanks for looking into these thing
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:08:35AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:35:08AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > members@ is basically a dead list, except around elections. I personally
> > > am all for re-using it. Also,
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:35:08AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > members@ is basically a dead list, except around elections. I personally
> > am all for re-using it. Also, an archive of the ml would be handy too.
>
> There is an archive, it'
ar
(and that Stuart, after the handover, will have to do the labour to
create this, thank you for this), i am wondering; are there such reports
for the previous years? If not, is there still enough data available for
creating such reports?
Luc Verhaegen.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:59:58PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 08:33:01AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > A summary and IRC log of the March 2 meeting of the X.Org Board of Directors
> > are now posted at:
> >
> > http://www.
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:28:39AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Modularized dri drivers and an SDK enabled mesa tree are available in my
> personal git repos at http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~libv/
>
> The SDK enabled mesa tree adds to the mesa build system to create shared
> libra
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 01:28:28AM -0700, Corbin Simpson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:28:39AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> Modularized dri drivers and an SDK enabled mesa tree are available in my
> >>
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:26:03PM +0100, Nicolai Haehnle wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > So, identify the volatile interfaces, and the more stable interfaces,
> > and then isolate the volatile ones, and then you come to only one
> > conclus
o
might like one or another way of working better. And i guess that this
is what those reasoning against this are mostly afraid of. Ideas like
this can no longer be swept under the carpet with "impossible".
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg@li
his actions a bit better.
But as said in an earlier email, what you incur on overhead here you
can easily make up in the driver internal interfaces. And then the other
synergies come weighing in.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:46:37PM +0100, Nicolai Haehnle wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> In
> >> particular, the Mesa core <-> classic driver split only makes sense if
> >> there are enough people who are actually wor
m
like situation, where an update of one volatile part forces a version
bump of the amalgamut, which in turn forces updates of all the
dependants, even when they just depend on some otherwise stable parts?
Are we then not just plainly scurrying toward
license.
* useful verbosity.
* dumping of only the main edid block to mmm-.edid (just 128bytes as
i am too lazy to do things properly).
So, vbe-edid is available here:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~libv/vbe-edid
For interpreting the edid block, use xorg/app/edid-decode.
Luc Verhaegen
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:14:19PM +0200, Kai-Uwe Behrmann wrote:
> Am 16.10.10, 17:48 +0200 schrieb Luc Verhaegen:
>> When looking into #24348 i dug out the read-edid code to see what i
>> needed to do to separately test the failing 0x4F01 call on vbe with
>> vm86.
>>
servers, and who
thought this would be funny, and who deserves to lose his access right
here, right now?
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support
Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg
Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:32:30PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> Radeonhd repo:
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
>
> authorSPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14 (GMT)
> committer SPIGOT 2010-11-02 04:21:14
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:47:19PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 01:32:30PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Radeonhd repo:
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
> >
> > author SPIGOT
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:25:33AM -0500, Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > > It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this
> > commit is
> > > fully in line with the naming scheme used by fd.o. Plu
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 08:32:10AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Gaetan Nadon wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:57 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> > It is clear that this is not a normal security breach, as this
> >> commit is
> >> > fully in line
ce May. No one, especially Adam, is
> going to insert backdoors in the xserver or whatever it is you're
> thinking. The guy has 28 commits to the xserver alone since 1.9 was
> released on August 20.
>
> Matt
This here is not a joke at all.
Stop downplaying it.
Luc Verhaegen.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:24:12PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 13:32 +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > Radeonhd repo:
> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/driver/xf86-video-radeonhd/commit/?h=spigot
> >
> > author SPIGOT 2010-11-02 0
y
downplaying this proves that i took the right course of action.
About mailing the board, well, the board is not exactly the fastest of
organs, even though i feel that it has become better since the last
elections and the crap throwing that happened before and after them.
Luc Verhaegen.
too. Mailing
fd.o admins, even if i could've dug up an email address in the split
second that i wrote the email (heck, i even mistyped repository), was
not the right course of action.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support
A
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:36:17PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >
> > See, this was exactly the problem here. It _was_ a freedesktop admin.
> > And it was pretty clear that it was that from the onset too. Mailing
>
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:01:19PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:36:17PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> >
> >> &
feelings about free software and the likes, I had absolutely
nothing to counter, anything i could even try to throw up against that
would either be completely irrelevant and meek, or a lie.
_This_ is how the world works with an X.org that works like that.
Someone just mailed it "i find i
ll things said and done, it looks like mailing just fd.o admins
was not the best of options here. Two of the fd.o admins were
responsible for this :(
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support
Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.o
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 08:27:12PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On 24/11/10 19:38 , Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>>
>> Conspiracy theories?
>
> I did not imply that you were the one starting with the conspiracy
> theories, and I think strictly speaking there was no name-ca
e prank? Or do you find this a flagrant
abuse of power and a severe breach of trust that damages the whole of
fd.o and x.org?
Why do i find myself having to explain this still, i would've expected
this was clear by now.
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg@l
this issue, but is X's contribution
> difficulty larger?
>
> I ask out of complete curiosity, not trying to stir any pot.
> Matt
Yes, a mail like this will get them all to come clean and tell you,
publically, that they do not want to contribute back, a
time bashing me for blowing this
open, and not talking to the admins, while all you did was 1) put this
on irc 2) shrug and walk away.
Do you find this acceptable behaviour for the secretary of the X.org
board?
Since i am pasting irclog, attached is mo
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:01:20PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:40:54PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >
> > We could probably better define this sort of things, again fd.o has
> > been a pretty haphazard setup based on volunteer time and effort, but
&
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:39:48AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 7:01 AM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:40:54PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> >>
> >> We could probably better define this sort of things, again fd.o has
> &g
e access to kemper.
>
> Dave.
Hehe! Finally, proof that i am not a donkey :) I made the gabe/kemper
mistake last week in privmsg as well (dig corrected me then).
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support
Archives: http://list
et me know that you're coming (email, irc, phone), so i can forewarn
the staff, my phonenumber still is the same (german) one. They can
handle a surge, but i would like to know whether we should just get a
table for a handful of people or if we need to grab a whole floor like
last year.
|Added
>
> Status|NEW |RESOLVED
> Resolution||FIXED
>
> --- Comment #4 from Daniel Stone 2011-02-09 06:36:31
> PST ---
> done
Root access restored, i presume?
Luc Verhaegen.
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:02:58PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:43:07PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 06:36:32AM -0800, bugzilla-dae...@freedesktop.org
> > wrote:
> > > --- Comment #4 from Daniel Stone 2011-0
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 07:56:04AM +0100, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
> Luc Verhaegen writes:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:02:58PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:43:07PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> >> > On Wed,
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:17:50AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 08:19:09AM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 07:56:04AM +0100, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 03:02:58PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
&g
X.org Foundation?
Luc Verhaegen.
___
xorg@lists.freedesktop.org: X.Org support
Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg
Info: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 02:44:05PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:02:56PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > If you actually wanted to find out, you could go ask someone,
> >
> >
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 04:01:01PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 02:44:05PM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:02:56PM +0100, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 07:25:21AM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 02/10/11 07:07 AM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > It seems that a useful and representative X.org board is needed, and
> > that their primary responsibility should be the funding and maintenance
> > of dependab
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 10:39:54AM -0800, Corbin Simpson wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
> > So it is better to leave this current situation as is, and have a major
> > part of the infrastructure that X.org and others depend on what i
> > honest
93 matches
Mail list logo
