Discussing issues

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Rich Murphey <Rich@WhiteOakLabs.com> wrote:

> So you believe we have an obligation to discuss the issues?  That's 
> pretty hypocritcal because Keith was asked what the issues 
> were and he refused to respond.

What I said on the core mailing list was that I needed more time to
formulate a coherent response and that it would take a week or so.  I'm
sorry that I was unable to respond as rapidly as you would have liked.  I
have since made the issue I wanted to discuss as clear as I know how in
many forums, including this mailing list.  I believe the fundmental issue
is one of governance, not endless discussions over process.

I also stated on that list that I was not planning on starting a new
project.  I've tried to make my intentions very clear, I do not want two X
projects causing endless compatibility issues for distribution vendors.  I
agree with the joint KDE/Gnome statement that a single stable X project is
the ideal forum for continued development of the window system and
dependent projects.  If my intention had been to form a separate project, I
would have simply done so.

I would again request that the complete archive of mailing messages sent to
the core for the relevant periods be made available so that others can see
what transpired on that closed list.

Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> There was a suggestion for Keith to setup another repository to do
> his work and work with others interested in the code he was working
> on. i.e. RENDER, Xc/Xr etc and submit patches to XFree86 at times
> when that team feels they are mature enough for the majority to
> test or for release to the wider world back to XFree86 for inclusion
> similar to the way the DRI works.

I think 3D would work significantly better if relevant pieces were
developed inside the X distribution.  DRI often suffers from significant
integration lag and support problems because the code people download from
XFree86 bears little resemblance to the code the Mesa and DRI developers
are working on.  

During the RandR integration for 4.3, I was unable to run the Radeon
GL driver from XFree86 on any of my video cards which led to video memory
issues that were only fixed when the Radeon driver was updated shortly
before the release and my cards started working again.

Distribution maintainers end up spending a lot of time pulling bits from
and XFree86 to put together a product.  I think it would be far better to
define stable ABIs where possible and have a single project working on each
piece of the puzzle.  One suggestion on the dri-devel list was that
interface between the X server and the DRI was stable and might provide a
good separation point between two projects.  I don't know how to split 
things up, but I do know that the current method of sloshing code back and 
forth between two largely identical repositories is a huge waste of time.

For projects like the Render extension and RandR, integration would be 
even more difficult.  OpenGL is mostly a 'bag on the side' of X; the hooks 
necessary to connect external rendering into the system aren't nearly as 
invasive as the changes needed to support new 2D rendering or screen 
resizing.  We'd end up with two separate X servers with different 
capabilities and a constant struggle for everyone to make things work.

Again, if I thought a separate project would work, I would have just 
done so.


Forum mailing list

[X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Samba]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux