On 8/22/24 1:11 AM, Axel Davy wrote: > > For all these reasons, unless there is vigorous protestations here, I > will propose a PR to remove gallium nine. >
Hi Axel, thank you for all your great work on nine and mesa and I also hope you stay around. However, I would like to argue that nine should stay for now. I fully agree with you that nine is no longer needed for modern hardware, however I have to second Filip here that nine still has its uses for old HW (like the r300 driver I maintain where modern stuff like DXVK is not an option). There has been a discussion about making new amber branch and getting rid of the old drivers few weeks ago and I feel like nine is in the same group, i.e., while there is extra maintenance burden, it is not that large enough to really require nuking it right now. However, to be honest, I'm not the one working on core mesa changes, therefore maybe I will be corrected here about the actual burden of having nine in tree. I'm also obviously biased, since I've invested quite some time into fixing r300 for nine and quite recently also into having some basic r300/nine CI testing (although I don't have resources to make it reliable enough for pre-merge). So I can promise to continue keeping an eye on regressions and maybe occasionally fix something in parts of mesa I understand (which is unfortunately not nine itself). Best regards Pavel P.S. Sorry for posting in a new thread, I actually only subscribed today to write this answer so I could not post a proper reply.
