On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 11/17/2010 06:42 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > fwiw, I don't really see a need to differ between major/minor ABI. It's just > > a number and we have a fair way to go before we run out of integers. And not > > having to remember which one was major/minor in the driver ifdefs is > > helpful. > > Except that a major bump causes all the input drivers to fail to load > until they are rebuilt. If you just bump the minor number, we don't need > to rebuild things. While it's not a huge deal, it is a pain when I try > to provide packages in PPAs for people to test and develop with. > > > so for all I care, we can bump the major number again, but I'd like to do > > this not immediately, but rather when we know that we likely won't need > > another bump this cycle. > > Since the major motivation here is the MT work and the changes aren't > > immediately needed for other stuff, I'd like to hold this back on the MT > > branch and then cherry-pick over when we have a clearer picture. Does this > > make sense? > > That would be fine except I would like to push masked valuators into > evdev. I can't do that without the extra helper functions. Since adding > the helper functions is backwards compatible, why not just leave the > major ABI as is and merge the change?
alrighty, makes sense. I'll merge the patch with a bump to the minor and send it in the next pull. Cheers, Peter > _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
