On Feb 7, 2011, at 09:24, Maarten Maathuis wrote: > 2011/2/7 Michel Dänzer <[email protected]>: >> On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 09:34 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:06:14 +0100, Maarten Maathuis >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> - Not sure if it was causing problems, but you never know. >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Michel Dänzer <[email protected]> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Maathuis <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> Merged all three of these patches. >>>> 246d40b..541b250 master -> master >>>> >>>> -- >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> These three exa patches should probably go into 1.9 branch. >> >> Agreed for af87f6367ef733d1a4f3cfca4eeb92bfd84c2b6f, the others seem >> borderline stable material at best. > > At the moment i agree with Michel.
Pushed just the one: ce83d1b..0a4b0de server-1.9-branch -> server-1.9-branch Although 648d4fe5172 does feel 1.9-worthy. What are the risks in pulling it in? Are we afraid that using the GPU version will produce different results? --Jeremy _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
