On 21 November 2015 at 00:31, Nanley Chery <nanleych...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > Get it out and reviewed please. This is a bugfix I'll pick it once it's ready, although add the mesa-stable line in there just in case :-)
Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
