On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 08:49:39PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 01:51:27PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 22:48 +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote: > > > > > > As we learned on XDS, this sort of, what others would call, basic > > > > > diligence, like testing some graphics drivers first, would only be > > > > > reserved for drivers which would've been merged back into the server > > > > > tree. > > > > I believe you're conflating > > > > "changes that break the build of merged drivers will not be pushed" > > > > with > > > > "drivers merged in the server are the only ones that matter" > > > > which, okay, that's a pretty standard comprehension failure for you I > > suppose. > > > > - ajax > > Please re-read the above and your subsequent statements. > > Your first statement does indeed say: we are free to push changes which > break drivers, without taking responsibility for unbreaking those > drivers. > > Luc Verhaegen.
One empty bladder later; You're right, i am mixing things here... "changes that break the build of merged drivers will not be pushed"... to the server by the release manager of the server. That's just stating: the server release manager cannot be bothered to look any further. How about if this sort of strategy was actively applied: changes from which the release manager assumes that they will break driver will be withheld until this fear is proven wrong or until the issues are solved/patches are provided to fix this. Maybe combined with a posterior tactic of making the author of the breaking patch responsible for breakage, which might finally instill proactive and forward thinking in some developers. Luc Verhaegen. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
