On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 01:49:22PM -0600, Matt Dew wrote: > On 09/03/2013 11:45 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:35:56AM -0600, Matt Dew wrote: > >> Ping? > > > > I've merged this into my tree now, will be in the next pull request > > > > Cheers, > > Peter > > Thanks Peter. > Any idea when that pull request will be? xserver 1.14.3 has been a > mess schedule wise. I'd like to get it out so I can get back onto a > 6-week schedule again but I'd like to get this one in .3 instead of > waiting for .4 just so we can be done with it. > > If that pull request'll be this week, I'll wait until next Thursday > before releasing 1.13.4 otherwise I'll just pop out 1.13.4 tomorrow.
pull request is out. http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2013-September/037699.html Cheers, Peter > >> On 08/26/2013 03:06 PM, Matt Dew wrote: > >>> Keith, > >>> I saw you did a R-b back on Jun 21, did that make it into trunk that I > >>> can cherry-pick? > >>> > >>> thanks, > >>> Matt > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Chris Clayton <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Matt. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 06/27/13 02:46, Matt Dew wrote: > >>> > >>> On 06/26/2013 01:20 AM, Chris Clayton wrote: > >>> > >>> [snip] > >>> > >>> > >>> I see that 1.14.2 has been released without any of the above > >>> happening. > >>> That's no big deal, but Matt's statement in the release > >>> notice "that > >>> this release doesn't work with gcc 4.8-snapshot" is a bit > >>> misleading. As > >>> I reported, it won't *build* with gcc-4.8 snapshot. Once my > >>> patch is > >>> applied, it builds fine and, from my experience over the > >>> last two weeks, > >>> it works fine too. > >>> > >>> > >>> Hi Chris, > >>> I didn't feel there was enough time to properly bake that > >>> patch so I > >>> didn't include it in 1.14.2. > >>> > >>> > >>> From a quick look at the source, I see that my patch has not been > >>> applied yet. Like the 1.14.2 release candidates, 1.14.2.902 does not > >>> build without it when the compiler is a recent 4.8 gcc release. > >>> > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> > >>> It wasn't my intent to be misleading but to me, in this > >>> regard, 'not > >>> building' is the same as 'doesn't work'. > >>> > >>> Matt > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> [email protected]: X.Org development > >> Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel > >> Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel > >> _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
