Combining Mesa3D and DRI mailing lists and/or sites? (was: Re: Wrapping up 7.4 (finally))

Keith Whitwell keith at
Thu Jun 12 09:40:49 PDT 2008

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Timo Jyrinki <timo.jyrinki at> wrote:
> 2008/6/12 Daniel Stone <daniel at>:
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:49:57AM +0300, Timo Jyrinki wrote:
>>> Speaking of which, if you have any ideas how to better interlink and combine:
>>> -
>>> -
>>> -
> ...
>> I don't understand why DRI and Mesa have separate lists and websites,
>> tbh, especially given the level of crosstalk.  For the wikis, it should
>> be possible to link between them, and I'll try to sort out how to make
>> that happen.
> Hi. Would it be any beneficial to (either, both or neither):
> 1. Combine mailing lists as follows:
> - mesa3d-dev & dri-devel
> - mesa3d-users & dri-users
> - mesa3d-announce & dri-announce
> - mesa-commit & dri-patches
> There is probably historical reasons for the separation, but are there
> any current ones that would be more important than the benefits for
> single point of discussion about Mesa/DRI which overlap so much anyway
> (especially in users' perspective, but also development-wise)?
> At the same time, they might be moved to from
> 2. Make DRI's wiki into combined Mesa3D's and DRI's wiki. Mesa3D does
> not currently have a wiki of its own, but DRI has. Mesa3D certainly
> doesn't need yet another wiki in addition to wiki and DRI wiki,
> so why not make it a common one officially?
> I think Mesa3D's current web site is quite nicely organized, and could
> be evolved from that by integrating a bit more DRI stuff and the new
> (currently DRI) wiki into it. Certainly not throwing away it and
> replacing with a wiki, a wiki would take a very big effort to make it
> as navigable and organized as the Mesa3D homepage currently is.
> If either sounds reasonable, is it acceptable for DRI as a project to
> be generally known (as it already mostly is known, I think) a
> sub-project of Mesa3D, so the combined name would be simply Mesa3D? Or
> is there a need for clearer separation between the two? Mainly
> important from the perspective of naming of the mailing lists, ie. can
> they be mesa3d-devel or something else.

In reality, what has happened is that most of this has already
occurred -- whatever 3d driver-related traffic that hasn't been sucked
into IRC is now occurring on the Mesa lists.

The DRI list has in effect become the list for development of the drm
kernel module, libdrm, and the various memory manager implementations.
 While Mesa is an important client of these, it is far from being the
only client.

I actually think the current structure makes a lot of sense - if we
wanted a change, we could rename dri-devel to drm-devel, but it hardly
seems worthwhile.  Another proposal would be to merge the DRI lists
into LKML...  I don't really want to do that either...


More information about the xorg mailing list