On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Jeremy Huddleston <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
It usually only does gpu pixmaps (gpu pixmap == driver managed pixmap). There is a chance this version of exa never hits a codepath where this value is used. I don't see much risk, except that few people test/use that type of exa and we don't want to burden them with problems in a stable branch. > > --Jeremy > > -- Far away from the primal instinct, the song seems to fade away, the river get wider between your thoughts and the things we do and say. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
