On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Chad Versace <chad.vers...@intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri 20 Nov 2015, Nanley Chery wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Brian Paul <brian.e.p...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> > wrote: > > > >> I think #2 might be better, but there's a lot of churn. I don't know > > >> that we want that much churn right around the time of the release > branch > > >> point, and I think it would be good to have this resolved in 11.1. I > > >> also have a few bits of feedback in #2, so it might take a couple > > >> iterations before that could land. > > >> > > >> > > > Since 11.1 is coming up, can we go with the simpler #1 for now, then > go to > > > #2 after 11.1 branches? > > > > > > > > I don't mind going this route. Unfortunately, I'm running into presently > > unexplainable linker errors in the process of making the gtest for this > > feature. > > Nanley, you're branch has two patches. If you remove the gtest patch > (patch #2) from your branch, does everything work as expected? If so, > then I think it's best to get patch #1 into > 11.1 before the Emil creates the branchpoint, and worry about the gtest > afterwards. > I've been told that most people wait 24 hours before pushing a patch that's been given an Rb. Would it be acceptable to push it immediately given the circumstances? Regards, Nanley
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
