Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> writes: > On 28 November 2015 at 17:06, Francisco Jerez <curroje...@riseup.net> wrote: > >> ... you're free to propose such a change as a >> separate series as long as you fix the documentation, all users and >> back-ends of pipe-loader, if you consider it worth doing -- I personally >> don't. >> > That what I was wondering about. Thanks > >> I don't think it boils down to that. ... > > I got the idea that you approve of the patch the first time around, > despite it (the approval) blurring with the lengthy justification of > the improved version. > There was something fishy going on in this patch, it was obviously papering over a bug elsewhere, so a justification was more than appropriate IMO...
> Perhaps we (I'm also guilty on that one) can use a more explicit > "looks good, but let's we use X, because ..." approach. Otherwise > things tend to get a bit strange ? > > Thanks > Emil
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
