On Wed, 4 May 2011 18:21:20 -0700, Jesse Barnes <jbar...@virtuousgeek.org> wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2011 11:17:02 +1000 > Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So I wasn't watching and glproto broke its interface, and I think its bad. > > > > Why? > > > > You can no longer bisect things across this point without now moving > > glproto. > > glxproto.h:xGLXBufferSwapComplete was a released header file > > definition, you cannot go back and change history. > > > > This should have been handled with xGLXBufferSwapComplete2 struct that > > newer mesa and X server could would use > > instead of the older code. Old code would build against the old broken > > defintion but since its broken it wouldn't matter, > > and new code would build against the new fixed definition. > > > > This doesn't address the I need the latest glproto to build mesa and > > my distro doesn't have which concerns me less > > than the I can't bisect anymore and I fully agree with Jesse that the > > last time we tried using #ifdef for this sort of thing it led > > to a number of untested combos resulting in impossible to debug issues. > > Yes, in hindsight I was too shellshocked by our previous experience > with dri2 invalidate, ifdefs, and untested paths to even consider > allowing new code to build with old proto. But breaking bisect is bad, > no doubt. > > But in this case adding a separate struct is probably the right thing > to do, and I'd be happy to do it if people are willing to put up with > the churn (glproto 1.4.14, dri2proto 2.5 plus changes to Mesa and X to > use the new struct).
Yes, please do a new struct. I'm happy to see the churn to make it happen if it means developers are likely to do better at testing stable branches.
pgpJQDb5VCzXL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
