On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Tiago Vignatti <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 08:09:06PM +0100, ext Keith Packard wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:02:02 -0500, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > The fix here isn't to add back in a bunch of duplicated Alpha >> > assembly. >> >> Correct, the right fix is to solve the problem. However, I'd like to see >> that solution come in a single patch instead of two separated by weeks >> of time. Reverting the original fix and supplying an updated version is >> a good way to keep things connected. Do you want to provide an updated >> patch, assuming that the original fix is reverted? >> >> No-one is suggesting that the stale alpha assembly ship in the server >> here :-) >> > > ping? > Tiago
I'm not sure if you're pinging me or Keith, so I'll respond :) I don't personally see much wrong with the current code, so I don't really care to write a patch for it myself. To respond to Keith: I agree that the correct solution should come in the form of a single patch, not two. But to me, a revert and a patch on top of the current form seems like two, whereas a patch from the current state to whatever it needs to be appears to be one. It doesn't matter to me. Just don't submit a patch that adds this assembly back in and leaves it at that. Matt _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
