[Unichrome-devel] Re: Moving to X.Org?
daniel at fooishbar.org
Tue Sep 7 08:49:34 PDT 2004
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Ivor Hewitt wrote:
> >I can only back what Thomas said.
> >The via driver still requires _a_ _lot_ of work, and our situation is
> >such that we largely depend on users feedback.
> >A stable branch in our CVS, running a few weeks behind on release,
> >that gets submitted to x.org is probably the way to go.
> I could understand this reluctance with the glacial progress of the old
> xfree tree... but I was under the impression that this was one of the
> things that xorg wanted to promote i.e. rapid driver development. i.e.
> this would be development in the xorg CVS tree. aka the unstable branch.
> I agree we rely on users feedback, but it would be no harder for them to
> checkout from the xorg CVS than sourceforge.
We want to promote rapid driver development, yes. If you're doing
absolutely earthshaking work such that the driver has no chance of even
building, you can work in a separate CVS branch; I just don't see the
need to have it in a separate CVS repository in the first place, when
you could be far more integrated with X.Org.
But, given it's your (plural) project, it's your call. :)
> Also, is the freedesktop CVS a bit more reliable/available than the
> sourceforge anon one?
Er, hell yes. The only downtime we have is when pserver crashes due to
massive load (very rare), and even then it will never be down for more
than 59min, which is an absolute maxiumum -- one of the admins is
usually caught within about ten minutes, and we haven't had it crashing
Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
"The programs are documented fully by _The Rise and Fall of a Fooish Bar_,
available by the Info system." -- debian/manpage.sgml.ex, dh_make template
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the xorg