On 04/07/2016 12:25 PM, Stéphane Marchesin wrote:
On Apr 7, 2016 02:27, "Michel Dänzer" <mic...@daenzer.net
<mailto:mic...@daenzer.net>> wrote:
>
> On 07.04.2016 18:01, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org
<mailto:i...@freedesktop.org>> wrote:
> >> Why would you do that? I've NAKed this patch several times.
> >
> > You NAKed the previous version of the patch, not this one. I guess
> > that means NAK for this one too.
>
> I'd be interested in a specific justification for NAKing this version.
> Seems to me like this might be the best that can be done.
We asked ourselves the same question.
It is the best that can be done to fix glx 1.2 for sure. But it will
break glx 1.3, so for example it will break chrome (I have a vested
interest here :).
So what we figured out is, if we have to choose between the old and
new api, why break the newer (and arguably better) one? Instead we
should consider the old one deprecated/legacy and move on.
Stéphane
How does this break glX 1.3, and how does this break Chrome?
MM
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
