Fredrik Höglund <fred...@kde.org> writes: > Cc: "10.1" <mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org>
(And "10.2" as pushed to master)
Hi Fredrik,
I helped prod you into pushing this patch to master, which brought it
more directly into my view as a candidate for the 10.2 branch.
Now that I'm taking a closer look at the patch, I think it's missing
something in its current form to be a candidate for the stable branch.
Specifically, the commit message is a single-line, ("Don't use derived
vertex state..."), but without any explanation of what kind of bug this
is fixing, what the severity might be, etc.
And the patch is long enough that it's not trivial to just look at it
and have some confidence that there's just the bug fix here, (whatever
that bug fix might be). [The patch could be shorter without some
renaming going on here.]
Could you prepare another version of this patch with a bit more content
in the commit message?
Your email here does have some hints:
> It's possible that this patch fixes a segfault in FlightGear (see bug 73504),
> so I think it's a candidate for the 10.1 branch, but maybe not for 10.1.0.
If there's a segfault-fix here, I'd like to see that described in the
commit message. (Like I said, I didn't find the segault fix in my
attempt to read the patch.)
And if there's a fix for a bug in bugzilla, then that should be in the
commit message as well.
I do recognize that you qualified things with "it's possible" and that
may be why this text was not in the commit message itself.
I'd like to see a little more certainty about bug fixes before pulling
them over to the stable branch.
Thanks,
-Carl
--
carl.d.wo...@intel.com
pgpYOld9xY14_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
