On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 11:15 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote: > Nice one... I wonder if your view will be the same if you were never > involved in distribution packaging? Guess we'll never know :-\ > In case you've forgotten things have been like that for a long time - > long before I jumped in.
I wasn't accusing you of anything. I said _I_ am not the one making the decision, that's all. Obviously I can't make definite assertions about counterfactuals about my work history, but I think considering all "new features" equally destabilizing is wrong. Why have an extension model if you're not going to use it to make assertions about the orthogonality of feature sets? Why refuse to reason about the code, unless you don't have any confidence that it's something that can be reasoned about? Yes, we do backport features, it works pretty well. If one does so enough times, a sense develops of how "big" of a feature it's possible to backport reasonably. I have my own opinion about this one, and I was asking what the rule was for mesa stable. Since the rule seems to be "no", fine, not for stable. - ajax _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
