Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Discussing Mesa's "Stupid Development Model"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,567

    Default Discussing Mesa's "Stupid Development Model"

    Phoronix: Mesa's "Stupid Development Model" Discussed

    Red Hat's David Airlie has started a new mailing list discussion that's surrounding the "stupid development model" of Mesa. Their accepted policy of developing in stable branches and then pulling the code into the master code-base periodically (rather than just working directly on master) is causing many frustrations for Dave in being able to back-port fixes to existing stable branches of Mesa...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODIwMA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,040

    Default

    Both the original thread and new thread links point to the new thread.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    My Parents Basement
    Posts
    52

    Default

    I assume these problems are not adressed with libv's new model?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    1,578

    Default

    "So in the spirit of being less of a dickhead" Gonna remember that way to start a thread if I ever want an overly critical attitude towards my posts...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nurnberg.
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bugmenot2 View Post
    I assume these problems are not adressed with libv's new model?
    For the problem statement that Dave (curiously i am sure he will maintain that this sudden change of ideas was in no way related to unified driver stacks and the dri work) came up with in the start of the second thread, separate dri/gallium drivers and unified driver stacks would indeed be the best way forward.

    But of course, Dave and some others are still unwilling to acknowledge that. I wonder how long it will take them to properly start thinking in this direction.

    In any case, it looks as if there was a lot of noise, that the wrong tree is being barked up, and that in the end nothing major will be changed and that at best, only very minimal improvements will come from this discussion.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,267

    Default

    Yeah, I''m with Airlie on this one. The mesa model is bass-ackwards. I track git to get the latest changes for my r600 class card and it's odd to see the way they merge the branches.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Mesa development should just reorganize and follow the Linux development model. It's tried and tested - it just works.

    I still think Dave's unfortunately true oxymoron is hilarious, development in stable.

    I think that sums up the whole problem.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nurnberg.
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by damentz View Post
    Mesa development should just reorganize and follow the Linux development model. It's tried and tested - it just works.

    I still think Dave's unfortunately true oxymoron is hilarious, development in stable.

    I think that sums up the whole problem.
    The linux kernel model simply does not apply for graphics hw related stuff. It's great for (relatively) simple devices, but the complexity of graphics hardware, and the fact that all parts are spread between kernel, libdrm, xserver, mesa, and external utilities, mean that there will be no half-decent development model until they split parts out of their current mother-projects.

    The fact that it isn't split out is the root cause of this and many more issues we are seeing with graphics drivers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    south east
    Posts
    342

    Default

    I can't seem to follow either individual. But I know the standard linux development model doesn't go back and correct mistakes.

    Let's say the scheduler worked great in 2.6.21 but 2.6.22 was terrible. A few bug fixes come out for 2.6.22 as 2.6.22.1, ..., 2.6.22.3. The scheduler is still bad. But the reports are ignored as being people using old hardware. 2.6.23 is released and they realize there is problem with the scheduler. It get's fixed as 2.6.23.1.

    The problem comes in that 2.6.22.4 should also get a fixed scheduler but it doesn't. Everyone is recomended that they should move to 2.6.23.1.

    This is stupid development.

    Are the network adapters ever ported back to older releases? Only RedHat does this. I'm not sure what they do for graphics drivers. All the I915 changes seen in the last 10 months probably aren't in the collection.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,610

    Default

    You must live in the past

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •