Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 18:23:38 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 246767] graphics/mesa-libs: enable libglvnd support Message-ID: <bug-246767-7141-ZI70YA0sdo@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-246767-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-246767-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D246767 Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevans@freebsd.org --- Comment #4 from Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Jan Beich from comment #3) Existing deadlock aside, this seems like an odd stance to take. If I'm maintainer of something that's worth doing an exp-run for, I likely will not approve of a patch until I also see the consequences of the patch on reverse dependencies. i.e. maybe I approve in principle, but I want to see that due diligence is done before putting that on paper. Antoine, do you have any numbers on how many exp-runs we end up not doing o= ver some period of time because a maintainer doesn't approve of the patch? I think it makes sense to revise this, because I can't imagine this is savi= ng us all that much, resource-wise. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-246767-7141-ZI70YA0sdo>