[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dri-devel
Subject:    Re: RFC: libdrm repo
From:       vehemens <vehemens () verizon ! net>
Date:       2009-11-28 20:38:10
Message-ID: 200911281338.43199.vehemens () verizon ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 28 November 2009 10:41:39 Robert Noland wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-11-27 at 17:23 -0800, vehemens wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 November 2009 01:01:10 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:10 PM, vehemens <vehemens@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 21 November 2009 20:09:53 Dave Airlie wrote:
> > > >> > I see that you deleted bsd-core dispite the requests of a number
> > > >> > of people that you do not.
> > > >>
> > > >> Its git, nobody has touched any of it in ages, and none of the BSD
> > > >> maintainers used it, you can just get it back by branching from the
> > > >> commit before its removal, if you think revival is needed, don't
> > > >> bring back linux-core when you do please.
> > > >
> > > > I already told the both of you that I was planning to use it on IRC,
> > > > I just haven't had time to put anything in.
> > > >
> > > > In addition, he's asking for a repro to libdrm.  The way I see it, is
> > > > there were two choices:
> > > > 1) repro to libdrm, add the changes, not piss people off
> > > > 2) add the changes, repro to libdrm, piss people off
> > >
> > > I think we pissed one person off, not people, as I said, there are two
> > > people registered as BSD maintainers for drm code, oga and rnoland,
> > > neither of them cared. I'm not sure what value the codebase has if
> > > neither Free or OpenBSD are going to use it.
> >
> > You pissed a number of people off, but the difference with me is that I'm
> > not letting either of you get away with it.
> >
> > There are more then two BSD maintainers, and your statement that neither
> > of them cared is not correct.
>
> Don't get me wrong here, I don't like the current state of things, but
> given current drm development practices, this change was irrelevant.  I
> was a bit frustrated at the build breakage for libdrm, but krh and I
> worked through that and it is now resolved.
>
> While you have provided me with patches in the past, (which are much
> appreciated) I have not seen consistent or relevant work lately, so it
> really isn't clear to me how this is a big deal.  Given the nature of
> git, you could just branch your local repo before that commit, though
> patches based on the old repo are becoming increasingly difficult to
> merge into real code.

I haven't published any of my work recently, but that doesn't mean I haven't 
done anything that I would like to share.  Not sure why you feel this is 
important however.

I gave you a number of suggestions in private emails on how to fix problems 
such as the merging issue and you were unwilling to take them.

The whole point of having a public repository for code is collaboration that 
it allows.  You seem to of lost sight of this goal.

If you are unwilling or unable to do the work your self, you shouldn't prevent 
others from doing so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
--
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]