On Aug 10, 2012, at 09:54, Alex Deucher <alexdeuc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia > <jerem...@freedesktop.org> wrote: >> >> On Aug 10, 2012, at 03:37, Zhigang Gong <zhigang.g...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> >>> to try a full functional xserver with glamor, it’s recommended to use the >>> following xserver version: >>> >>> commit a615b90cab7569fae9d123e4da1d3373c871d84b >>> >>> Author: Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> >>> >>> Date: Wed Mar 14 11:32:36 2012 -0700 >>> >>> >>> >>> Bump version number to 1.12.99.0 >>> >>> >>> >>> Now that 1.12 has branched, reset the version on master to a >>> >>> development number. >>> >> >> >> Why is such an old server version recommended? Surely tip of >> server-1.12-branch is superior to this branch point+1 on master? And I'd >> really expect tip of master to be a better candidate than that given the >> development nature of glamor. Can you please clarify? > > That should be fine. The commit is question is just the most recent > commit on master that still works prior to the changes that broke the > module ordering that broke glamor. I think you're mistaken. The commit referenced is just xorg-server-1.12.0 + version change. It is significantly before the module loading changes. _______________________________________________ xorg@lists.x.org: X.Org support Archives: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg Your subscription address: arch...@mail-archive.com
