[PULL] unreviewed patches

Keith Packard keithp at keithp.com
Tue May 7 09:51:02 PDT 2013

Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> writes:

> moved there. I assumed your rev-by, I don't want to do another revision. let
> me know if it's not to your liking.

Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com>

> yes, but tbh I do like the idea of extensions cleaning up after themselves
> instead of leaving it to some other piece of code. I can drop the patch
> though, I don't care either way tbh.

Thinking more about it this morning, I do believe it would be better to
not have the extensions duplicate the cleanup work. I think the
duplication makes the API for extensions less clear as I suspect we'll
probably end up with extensions doing it both ways, which is never good
when people are reading through the code.

But, I don't care that deeply about the issue, and the code is correct
in either case -- my comment was more about clarifying the interaction
between the two patches than an actual complaint.

So send whichever version you prefer along, both patches are

Reviewed-by: Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com>

keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20130507/b84e4627/attachment-0001.pgp>

More information about the xorg-devel mailing list