[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:       2009-11-29 22:54:13
Message-ID: 200911291554.31246.vehemens () verizon ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:23:44 Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> On Sunday 29 November 2009 14:16:13 vehemens wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Your missing the point of using a development structure which supports
> > collobration.
>
> [snip]
>
> > The difference is that you are the only one doing the work now.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Again, your missing the point of using a development structure which
> > supports collobration.
>
> [snip]
>
> > It hasn't moved "... well beyond what was in drm git."   If you believe
> > otherwise, your only fooling yourself.
>
> [snip]
>
> > See above comments.
>
> Yes, you have made it abundantly clear that you are in favor of having a
> centralized repository for all DRM development.  The fact is, that's not
> happening now and is not going to happen.  That used to be the case, but
> the linux DRM developers did not see an advantage to that for themselves,
> and though rnoland was unhappy with the decision (because it made his job
> harder), the linux DRM developers did what they felt was best.

You assuming what what good for Linux for a developer, is also good for a BSD 
developer.  As for making rnoland's job harder, it was his choice.

> Since then, rnoland has made significant progress porting the linux
> specific changes over to FreeBSD.   If you don't believe the changes he's
> made in the FreeBSD source tree go 'well beyond' what had been in mesa/drm
> on freedesktop git then you are fooling yourself.  Frankly, if I were
> Robert, I would be offended by that statement you made.

I've diffed the code.  Suggest that you do the same and see if you can still 
make the same statements.

> As has been said time and again, the kernel specific code in mesa/drm
> serves no purpose other than providing a historical log of the DRM
> development from that time, so there was no harm in pulling it.  The
> FreeBSD DRM code follows the same development model as the rest of FreeBSD,
> and I have a hard time believing that such a model doesn't support
> collaboration.  That is certainly an accusation I've never once heard made
> against the FreeBSD project in recent years till just now.

If one stashes his/her development code where few if any can get at it, I 
don't consider that collaboration. 

> Now, the changes are made, and what's done is done.  Can we please just
> move on?

I was going to move along, but I felt your email had so many errors, I 
couldn't let it got by.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]