Glucose status/instructions request, (and notes on stale branches)
alanh at fairlite.demon.co.uk
Fri Oct 19 01:18:24 PDT 2007
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 18:28 -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thursday, October 18, 2007, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> > > Anyone is welcome to pull from the glucose branch if they like;
> > > pulling from 'not master' will give them a good idea of what to
> > > expect in terms of stability.
> > What I'm also concerned about is what else you veto in favour of your
> > terms. Where does that kind of argument end ?
> I think there are a few technical reasons that would argue against
> adding another accel architecture to the driver. One of the main
> problems we have now is that neither of the existing architectures work
> correctly in all situations, and having to maintain both adds to our
> workload a bit. So if it were up to me, I'd like to see just one,
> solid accel API, in the Intel driver at least, at a time.
> Fortunately, the driver side of glucose seems fairly simple, so we
> should have lots of code to delete if it hits master, and I think
> you're right to wait until you have the major issues addressed before
> trying to push it. On the other hand, a branch containing just the
> glucose stuff should be easy to keep up to date until the server and
> other pieces are ready, so it seems like it wouldn't be much trouble to
> keep it out of master for now (again I'm just thinking of the driver
> tree). The alternative would be for the next Intel driver release
> manager (which looks to be me after Kyle does his point release) to
> create a separate branch with just the features we'd like to see
> supported in the next release, but it would be nice if we could avoid
> that. After all, branches are for experimental features and master
> should be for stuff that's done. As it stands we have too many bugs
> and partially supported features in master...
You say above Jesse, that you are just thinking about the driver. So
just merging the main glucose code into xserver master - you'd be happy
That would at least give me the option to use glucose in other drivers.
It would also bring Xgl up-to-date too.
> Any other ideas? I'm just afraid of going any further down the slippery
> slope of adding "just one more config option" to the driver before it's
> ready or w/o removing others at the same time to keep things simple.
Mmm. It's not really a new option, we hook on the existing AccelMethod
option. But I hasten to add that you added the FBC option recently :-)
More information about the xorg