LCDproc development and user support list

Text archives Help


[Lcdproc] [PATCH] MtxOrb.c - patch 3


Chronological Thread 
  • From: reenoo AT gmx.de (Rene Wagner)
  • Subject: [Lcdproc] [PATCH] MtxOrb.c - patch 3
  • Date: Wed Sep 29 19:52:02 2004

Hi Chris,

On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 15:30, Chris Lansley wrote:
> > I've been on vacation for the past three weeks (without internet
> > access). Obviously, that makes it hard to reply to mail.
>
> THREE WEEKS! I hope you enjoyed yourself! :-)

Sort of. I had a kiting accident and injured my back at the end of
the first week... That's also why I didn't get to anything LCDproc
related during that period of time...

> > I guess William gave you CVS access.
>
> Yep.

Welcome on board then.

> > Unfortunately you didn't create a 0-4-6 branch before checking your
> > changes in.
>
> That's right - I tried looking for guidelines on LCDproc's use of CVS
> but found nothing. I just assumed you would branch/tag the 0-4-5 branch
> when you released 0-4-6. [Is my change the first since 0-4-6?]

No. Your changes are the first since the 0.4.5 release. This is all
a bit due to historical reasons... stable-0-4-6 would mean "to become
the 0.4.6 release".

We should have branched off the bleeding edge stuff back when
stable-0-4-3 was created and merged that back into HEAD once it
worked. But yeah, we have to live with how things are now I guess.

> > It's probably best to create a 0-4-x branch and only tag releases anyway.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I'll have to think about how to fix this a little further.
>
> Let me know if you want me to undo the changes to the 0-4-5 branch, and
> resubmit them to 0-4-x when it's created.

Sounds like a plan. I'll look into that tomorrow morning.

> > Can I talk you into merging the MtxOrb changes from the 0-4-? branches
> > into HEAD btw? You appear to have the hardware to test with...
>
> The HEAD (0.5) is so different that I'm unhappy doing that.

Actually it's not that different. The old drivers should all work with
minor modifications. Don't let the new function prototypes etc. scare
you off.

> BUT once I
> have the 0.4.5 version in a happy state then I hope to start working on
> the 0.5 version.

The past has shown that it appears to be easier to merge small
changes...

> My thinking is: both 0.4.5 and 0.5 MtxOrb needs a
> complete rewrite, but that's overkill for 0.4.5 - so it's best to just
> fix the big bugs. It would be worth doing more with the 0.5 MtxOrb,
> that's assuming that 0.5 is ever going to be released as a release?!

I've been thinking about releasing a preview version. On the server core
side there shouldn't be many things that need to be taken care of before
a final release (marquee scrollers and a few other things come to mind).

I do however expect major issues with people complaining about drivers
not working as well as they do in 0.4.x.

That's also why David suggested you to work on HEAD and not increase
the gap between 0.4.x and HEAD.

If someone wants to step in and guide the efforts towards a 0.5 release
I will gladly help with that. I'm afraid I cannot take care of that
myself due to limited resources (mainly time). The days when I pushed
0.4.3 were back when I went to school...

My studies require a lot more attention than expected and I've also
got involved with other projects (mainly OpenEmbedded, partly GPE).

Rene





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page