On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Matt Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Aaron.Chen 陈俊杰 > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Matt, >> >> Thank you for your review. We really appreciate that you've pick out so many >> issues we need to improve. It seems that we still have a lot of work to do >> to match the quality which can be accepted by X.Org. We will fix the issue >> you've reported before next submission. >> One more question: How many patches shall I make instead of one big patch? >> >> Aaron > > I'm traveling today, but in general patches should do one thing and > one thing only. For example, a patch to add support for a new video > chipset, to fix a bug, or add RANDR support. I can't guess how many > patches your work would have made. > > This is obviously difficult since your work has been done separately > from the xf86-video-siliconmotion driver for a few years. If you have > version control history, it may be easier to split this up into > smaller patches, but what I might suggest (since this is in essence a > totally new driver) is to make a v4 branch that contains your new > driver. We can fix it up from there and do a release for testing while > still letting the existing v1.7.x driver live on the master branch. Or > perhaps we could switch the branches around -- I'm not sure. > > I'd like to hear how some other X developers would handle this situation.
Yeah totaally, get the code into a branch of siliconmotion for now, and lets see what we need to do to make it master, The problem with this sort of crappy development via throwing stuff over a fence is it will most likely end up reverting a load of changes and cauing a crap load of regressions. Please try to develop the driver in the open tree. Dave. _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
