Re: [Dri-devel] Re: Invitation for public discussion about the future of X

> > > patches. I guess this 'prolonged' period, is the stickling point for most.
> >
> > Why not simply have a second CVS repository, where most development
> > would take place under, while the current repository would be the one
> > used for (pre-/post-) releases with coarse-grain commits. Like stable
> > and development branches, but with the branches being on different
> > repositories.
>
> Why a second repository then, instead of just branches, and maybe
> restricting most developers to commit to branches and only allow some to
> commit to the trunk, for example? I don't see much advantage in a
> separate repository (but I may simply be missing it, clues appreciated
> :), but it makes merges more difficult.
>

I think something like the gcc project has nowadays.. granted it took a
fork to make them get up of their proverbials and get moving but I think
now its a lot more open and releases are a lot more frequent and
controlled.. I think XFree may have to go through a similiar process to
gcc, I'd love to see it happen without the fork and giving out though :-),

they also have toplevel maintainters and then architecture and stuff like
that maintainers.. so for Xfree86 perhaps driver maintainters (who aren't
toplevel people, like mharris for Radeon for example) should be appointed
and they should be given free reign in their driver... outside their
driver the toplevel people need to get involved ...

Granted you don't have to listen to me :-) I've only submitted one patch
in my life to XFree and that was only a cleanup!!...

Dave.

-- 
David Airlie, Software Engineer
http://www.skynet.ie/~airlied / [email protected]
pam_smb / Linux DecStation / Linux VAX / ILUG person