Modular X.org and the Unichrome forks.

[Thomas Hellström]

Luc Verhaegen wrote:

>On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 09:38:26AM +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>  
>
>>Adam Jackson wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Thursday 22 December 2005 13:10, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>
>>>I have no desire to turn a choice among two drivers into a choice among 
>>>three.  If Xorg ships effectively the stable branch of one or the other 
>>>project, then we're creating driver number 3.  We _had_ to do this for 7.0 
>>>because we had to have parity with 6.9.  Doing it again in the 7.1 
>>>timeframe is mistake unless, and only unless, the driver we ship as part 
>>>of the 7.1 katamari is clearly superior to either of the other two in 
>>>terms of user experience.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I think the situation needs to be clarified, and X.org needs to make a 
>>decision on how to proceed.
>>
>>The openChrome project was not started by me, although I have been the 
>>most active developer lately, but by the  people wanting continued 
>>support for their Unichrome Pro chips and for XvMC. It is based on the 
>>code currently in Xorg with some additions for backwards compatibility 
>>and unstable development like EXA support and Xv DMA transfer. 
>>Development is currently focusing on EXA HW composite acceleration and 
>>XvMC mpeg4 acceleration.
>>
>>The reason for almost all developers leaving the unichrome.sf.net 
>>project one by one had very little to do with technical disagreement. 
>>For those few interested in gossip, I think the Unichrome mailing list 
>>archives are still open. It had more to do with people having enough of 
>>and wanting to be nowhere near statements like this:
>>
>>http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2005-December/011739.html
>>
>>I still think all developers involved agree technically on where the 
>>driver needs to go. There is a disagreement on how to get there, since 
>>there are people prioritizing usability and people prioritizing code 
>>cleanups no matter what price is paid.
>>
>>Recapping what's been said previously in this thread everybody seems to 
>>be favouring usability. This currently rules out replacing the existing 
>>via driver with the unichrome driver since it, in addition to what's 
>>been said earlier, also lacks support for Unichrome Pro modes, tv-out, 
>>and Xv, the latter requiring quite some effort to fix. I think Alan Cox 
>>clearly outlined what is going to happen if the via driver is removed 
>>from head.
>>
>>The other option (if conflicting commits are feared) is to appoint a 
>>maintainer for the driver who OKs or denies the commits. I think it has 
>>been pretty clear from the list discussions that there are to be no 
>>usability reversions unless _really_ motivated. I'd happily accept any 
>>qualified maintainer who agrees to follow those recommendations. Even Luc.
>>
>>Finally, to Luc, If lack of hardware is the reason for not extending 
>>your cleanups to Unichrome Pro, the offer of a CN400 board is still 
>>there. No VIA money involved.
>>
>>/Thomas
>>
>>    
>>
>What you said last time was: 
>http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=7004149&forum_id=38615
>
>About the very last bit, you, and Ivor Hewitt and Andreas Robinson, 
>should've thought about that before:
>- You all criticised me for being that verbose about very much needed 
>hardware donations (which i became after a release had been postponed 
>for several weeks due to no-one having the hardware to test a serious 
>problem report). Donations btw, which i have only ever been willing to 
>accept from commercial users (i have sinned: the only hardware i didn't 
>pay for my self is the discarded CH7019B daughterboard from an Acer 
>Aspire 135x).
>- You all so eagerly pounced on the resulting donations.
>- You all left shortly after.
>
>  
>
Umm, not really, I have never received any hardware donations except a 
loaner I had to return. That offer I just gave you I'd have to pay for 
myself.

>I'm sure that this sort of mudthrowing can continue for quite a long 
>time. And i'm very sure that i can rebutt most of it in more lengthy and 
>in the end pretty irrelevant ways.
>  
>
I was trying to be constructive....

>Now, what i am not sure about is why you are so eager to keep things in 
>tree. Surely openchrome.org is the most popular project, surely it has 
>all the features your users want. What are you afraid of?
>
>  
>
... in a way most users would benefit from ...

>X is modular. I don't see us come to terms any time soon. This 
>flamewar has gone on long enough. Maybe it's time to choose the option 
>that is most acceptable to most people and go back to doing something 
>useful.
>
>  
>
... but never mind.

Merry Xmas.

/Thomas