On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Timothy Arceri <tarc...@itsqueeze.com> wrote: > > My specific proposal is: > > - Rather than just pointing distros at the last Mesa release as we did for > the DRI1 driver, we create a mesa-pre-dx9-1.0 branch (branched from 17.1). > However unlikely this will at least give us the possibility to release > updates as some dev's have shown interest in. > > - Remove the following drivers from master: > Classic: > -------- > i915, nouveau, r200, radeon, swrast (classic) > > Gallium: > -------- > r300, i915g > > Opinions?
The arguments about not breaking old/stable drivers that aren't getting much testing on mesa/master is valid.. I'm not sure I would call it "pre-dx9".. part of that might be not being sure what dx feature level maps to in opengl(es).. on the mobile side, we have some newer hw and drivers that see a lot of development which could only support gl2/gles2, and I wouldn't want to cut those off. Especially when they might share a lot of code w/ drivers for newer hw which could support gl3/gles3+.. ie. etnaviv/freedreno (and maybe someday vc4?). Otoh if we can count on libglvnd to be a stable API so distros could let drivers from legacy tree/branch easily coexist w/ drivers from a master branch.. that might be a win-win. The downsides are porting changes related to dependencies (I guess most of what we can drop doesn't care about llvm version, so the dependencies are not much?), new gcc versions (I guess mostly solved by compiler flags in distro packaging?), and CVEs (I guess not much?). The upside is drivers for old hw doesn't get repeatedly broken by refactoring and new features that can't easily be tested on old hw. The rest is just sorting out which side of those choices out-weighs the other. BR, -R _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
