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

List:       wine-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH 2/2] d3drm: Partially Implement IDirect3DRM*::LoadTexture(v2).
From:       Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta () gmail ! com>
Date:       2016-03-28 18:17:09
Message-ID: CABVHfRvcJnMapbJ06fTYCjmF2UBcynXKcTqF8JBsj3CBRMnwnQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


I sent a patch with InitFromFile implemented first. I'll keep it aside and
implement CreateObject first if that's what you want.
After you're okay with the CreateObject patches, you can sign-off on the
LoadTexture patches later on. (after they're somehow integrated with the
CreateObject patches below it).

Cheers,
Aaryaman

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Henri Verbeet <hverbeet@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28 March 2016 at 17:56, Aaryaman Vasishta <jem456.vasishta@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > InitFrom* tests would require CreateObject to work, for which I am
> thinking
> > of implementing as a seperate series of patches. For now I'm thinking of
> > implementing InitFromFile for use by LoadTexture. Will that be okay? I
> could
> > add todo_wine tests for InitFromFile, and once CreateObject is
> implemented,
> > the todo's can be removed.
> >
> It might be ok. I'm not sure it's all that much easier than just
> implementing CreateObject() first though. It would also mean the Wine
> implementation is more or less untested until CreateObject() is
> implemented. The main reason I can think of for implementing
> InitFromFile() first is that it would allow you to send the code
> you've already written a little bit sooner, but I don't think that's a
> very convincing argument.
>

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>I sent a patch with InitFromFile implemented first. \
I&#39;ll keep it aside and implement CreateObject first if that&#39;s what you \
want.<br></div>After you&#39;re okay with the CreateObject patches, you can sign-off \
on the LoadTexture patches later on. (after they&#39;re somehow integrated with the \
CreateObject patches below it).<br><br></div>Cheers,<br></div>Aaryaman<br><div \
class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:40 PM, \
Henri Verbeet <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:hverbeet@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">hverbeet@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On 28 March 2016 at 17:56, Aaryaman Vasishta &lt;<a \
href="mailto:jem456.vasishta@gmail.com" \
target="_blank">jem456.vasishta@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br> &gt; InitFrom* tests \
would require CreateObject to work, for which I am thinking<br> &gt; of implementing \
as a seperate series of patches. For now I&#39;m thinking of<br> &gt; implementing \
InitFromFile for use by LoadTexture. Will that be okay? I could<br> &gt; add \
todo_wine tests for InitFromFile, and once CreateObject is implemented,<br> &gt; the \
todo&#39;s can be removed.<br> &gt;<br>
</span>It might be ok. I&#39;m not sure it&#39;s all that much easier than just<br>
implementing CreateObject() first though. It would also mean the Wine<br>
implementation is more or less untested until CreateObject() is<br>
implemented. The main reason I can think of for implementing<br>
InitFromFile() first is that it would allow you to send the code<br>
you&#39;ve already written a little bit sooner, but I don&#39;t think that&#39;s \
a<br> very convincing argument.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>


[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]




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