From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267491AbUHPJnl (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:43:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267494AbUHPJnl (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:43:41 -0400 Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.160.9]:54957 "EHLO shockwave.systems.pipex.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267491AbUHPJnj (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:43:39 -0400 Message-ID: <412081C6.20601@tungstengraphics.com> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:43:34 +0100 From: Keith Whitwell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030922 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: arjanv@redhat.com Cc: Dave Airlie , dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: DRM and 2.4 ... References: <1092640312.2791.6.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> In-Reply-To: <1092640312.2791.6.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 07:56, Dave Airlie wrote: > >>At the moment we are adding a lot of 2.6 stuff to the DRM under >>development in the DRM CVS tree and what will be merged into the -mm and >>Linus trees eventually, this has meant ifdefing stuff out so 2.4 will >>still work, > > > which is uglyfying the code significantly if done wrong > > >>So the question is do we want to a final stable DRM for 2.4 in the next >>2.4 release? and after that point I can tag the 2.4 release in the DRM CVS >>tree (and maybe branch it ...), > > > I would strongly urge you to no longer update DRM in 2.4 in significant > ways. 2.4 is the release for doing strict maintenance; people who want > to run newer X will generally run 2.6 kernels as well anyway. I'm not at all convinced we (ie the DRI project) can abandon 2.4 support. In fact we made this mistake with the 2.2/2.4 transition - we didn't support 2.2 at all, only 2.4 and for a long time this was a big inconvenience to users. We may not be feeding our changes into the 2.4 kernel (or maybe we are), but I definitely view 2.4 support as important for probably 1 to 2 years to come. If we can manage to support FreeBSD and Linux from one codebase, surely supporting 2.4 and 2.6 isn't too difficult? Keith