render improvements

Owen Taylor otaylor at
Tue Apr 26 19:59:51 PDT 2005

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 19:36 -0400, Zack Rusin wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 April 2005 19:37, you wrote:
> > Well, the old version validates. I'd rather see that then a new
> > version that we have to separately merge the fbpict.c changes, but
> > either way works in the end.
> Personally, I want to get the new implementation committed as "new 
> implementation" and not "new implementation + merging the changes 
> between xserver and xorg" because it's just another thing that can go 
> wrong. 

I guess my concern is that *more* different versions of fbpict.c
are being generated ... your original patch set had the advantage
that only one new version of fbpict.c had to be validated.

> I don't mind merging the difference between servers but considering that 
> no one did this for a number of months, I'd really want to have the new 
> implementation in CVS, before doing that.

Well, at this point, any further merging is blocked until your patches
land. Hopefully, as long as no new differences are introduced with
your patches the merge won't be any harder after.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the xorg mailing list