Re: [Mesa-dev] rules for merging patches to libdrm

["Christian König" <deathsimple@vodafone.de>]

For merging the patches for new hardware and/or features I agree on the 
process of merging things bottom up. (e.g kernel first, then libdrm, 
mesa last). But to give reasons for the merge into Linus tree it's 
usually better to have a "big picture" you can validate the code against.

So I think the very first step should be to publish everything on the 
appropriate lists, and not try an approach like releasing the kernel 
code first and waiting for it to show up upstream and then try to 
release the userspace code build on top of it.

I had this situation a couple of times where "management" people wanted 
to release things bit by bit to "speed things up" and it always took me 
a bit of time to explain that this wouldn't work in the open source 
world (at least not with the Linux kernel).

Christian.

Am 19.11.2013 15:26, schrieb Marek Olšák:
> Having patches on a mailing list is good enough, but generally if
> people *trust* you that you will have an open userspace, that's good
> enough too if you have people's trust.
>
> In my opinion, the required kernel code must land in Linus's tree
> first. If it's not there, it's like it didn't exist at all. Then you
> can merge and release dependent libdrm code. And after that, you can
> merge dependent Mesa code.
>
> This is really common sense and I don't think we need a strict process
> to enforce the rules.
>
> Marek
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Since we seemed to have some confusion over this I'll state it clearly here.
>>>
>>> You should not merge kernel interface and ioctls to libdrm until they
>>> have appeared in a git commit upstream with a stable id, this
>>> generally means drm-next, but can also mean drm-intel-next.
>> How does this interact with the rule that kernel interfaces require an
>> open source userspace? Is "here are the mesa/libdrm patches that use
>> it" sufficient to get the kernel interface merged?
>>
>> libdrm is easy to change and its releases are cheap. What problem does
>> committing code that uses an in-progress kernel interface to libdrm
>> cause? I guess I'm not understanding something.
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev