On Monday, February 22, 2016 12:20:02 PM PST Jose Fonseca wrote:
> On 22/02/16 02:59, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > Brian Paul writes:
> >
> >> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Jason Ekstrand
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 20, 2016 1:19 PM, "Rob Clark" wrote:
>
> fwiw, I think a *small*
On 22/02/16 02:59, Eric Anholt wrote:
Brian Paul writes:
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Jason Ekstrand
wrote:
On Feb 20, 2016 1:19 PM, "Rob Clark" wrote:
fwiw, I think a *small* number of topic branches in certain cases
makes sense.. I'm definitely in support of a TTL limit (ie.
auto
Brian Paul writes:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2016 1:19 PM, "Rob Clark" wrote:
>> >
>> > fwiw, I think a *small* number of topic branches in certain cases
>> > makes sense.. I'm definitely in support of a TTL limit (ie.
>> > automatically nuke
On Sat, 2016-02-20 at 13:41 -0800, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2016 1:19 PM, "Rob Clark" wrote:
> >
> > fwiw, I think a *small* number of topic branches in certain cases
> > makes sense.. I'm definitely in support of a TTL limit (ie.
> > automatically nuke topic branches with no activity
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Jason Ekstrand
wrote:
>
> On Feb 20, 2016 1:19 PM, "Rob Clark" wrote:
> >
> > fwiw, I think a *small* number of topic branches in certain cases
> > makes sense.. I'm definitely in support of a TTL limit (ie.
> > automatically nuke topic branches with no activity
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
> On Feb 20, 2016 1:19 PM, "Rob Clark" wrote:
>>
>> fwiw, I think a *small* number of topic branches in certain cases
>> makes sense.. I'm definitely in support of a TTL limit (ie.
>> automatically nuke topic branches with no activity in N m
On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Jason Ekstrand
> wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 2016 1:19 PM, "Rob Clark" wrote:
> >>
> >> fwiw, I think a *small* number of topic branches in certain cases
> >> makes sense.. I'm definitely in support of a TTL limit (
On Feb 20, 2016 1:19 PM, "Rob Clark" wrote:
>
> fwiw, I think a *small* number of topic branches in certain cases
> makes sense.. I'm definitely in support of a TTL limit (ie.
> automatically nuke topic branches with no activity in N months, or
> similar..)
I agree. Sometimes something big comes
fwiw, I think a *small* number of topic branches in certain cases
makes sense.. I'm definitely in support of a TTL limit (ie.
automatically nuke topic branches with no activity in N months, or
similar..)
BR,
-R
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> It's not so important now that
It's not so important now that the amdgpu driver is about to be merged.
Speaking of other branches, I think removing the old feature branches
is a good idea.
Marek
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 06/22/2015 10:40 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> I will happily remove the bran
On 06/22/2015 10:40 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
> I will happily remove the branch after the kernel driver lands.
>
> I also wonder why all Mesa developers can force-push branches in Mesa
> but not libdrm.
That's probably just historical. We probably ought to restrict that on
Mesa as well.
It sounds
I will happily remove the branch after the kernel driver lands.
I also wonder why all Mesa developers can force-push branches in Mesa
but not libdrm.
Marek
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Christian König
> wrote:
>> On 22.06.2015 15:41, I
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Christian König
wrote:
> On 22.06.2015 15:41, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:23:54PM +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Ilia Mirkin
wrote:
>>
On 22.06.2015 15:41, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:23:54PM +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 22.06.2015 00:31, Ilia Mir
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:23:54PM +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> >> On 22.06.2015 00:31, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, Jun
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:23:54PM +0200, Marek Olšák wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> >> On 22.06.2015 00:31, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Emil Velikov
> >>> wrote:
> On
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 22.06.2015 00:31, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Emil Velikov
>>> wrote:
On 20/06/15 10:01, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
> Ilia Mirkin writes
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 22.06.2015 00:31, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Emil Velikov
>> wrote:
>>> On 20/06/15 10:01, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
Ilia Mirkin writes:
> Hello,
>
> There are a *ton* of branche
On 22.06.2015 00:31, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> On 20/06/15 10:01, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
>>> Ilia Mirkin writes:
>>>
Hello,
There are a *ton* of branches in the upstream mesa git. Here is a full
list:
>>> [.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 20/06/15 10:01, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
>> Ilia Mirkin writes:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There are a *ton* of branches in the upstream mesa git. Here is a full list:
>>>
>> [...]
>>> is there
>>> any reason to keep these around with t
On 20/06/15 10:01, Eirik Byrkjeflot Anonsen wrote:
> Ilia Mirkin writes:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> There are a *ton* of branches in the upstream mesa git. Here is a full list:
>>
> [...]
>> is there
>> any reason to keep these around with the exception of:
>>
>> master
>> $version (i.e. 9.0, 10.0, mesa_7
Hi Ilia,
oh, yes please. Especially since some people tend to completely mirror
the mesa master repository including all those old branches.
This sometimes creates quite a mess.
Regards,
Christian.
On 20.06.2015 02:10, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
Hello,
There are a *ton* of branches in the upstream
Ilia Mirkin writes:
> Hello,
>
> There are a *ton* of branches in the upstream mesa git. Here is a full list:
>
[...]
> is there
> any reason to keep these around with the exception of:
>
> master
> $version (i.e. 9.0, 10.0, mesa_7_7_branch, etc)
Instead of outright deleting old branches, it wou
Hello,
There are a *ton* of branches in the upstream mesa git. Here is a full list:
origin/10.0
origin/10.1
origin/10.2
origin/10.3
origin/10.4
origin/10.5
origin/10.6
origin/7.10
origin/7.11
origin/7.8
origin/7.8-gles
origin/7.9
origin/8.0
origin/9.0
origin/9.1
or
24 matches
Mail list logo