the3dfxdude at gmail.com
Sun Aug 29 08:42:02 CDT 2010
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Jeff Cook <jeff at deserettechnology.com> wrote:
> Alexandre is right that the
> architecture is a lot of work, but I am not asking for him to write
> out a complete spec, and I don't think the community is, either; the
> main thing, as far as I can tell, is that the interaction and feedback
> on a major step forward for WINE has been minimal.
I know it seems frustrating of the lack of response. When I went
through the summer of code, the most I got from Alexandre was, 'it
doesn't work'. Well what doesn't work? And the honest answer from my
own assessment was my engine wasn't finished--which is why I didn't
push for a merge then. The school I went to required too much time for
me to continue the work, so I put it on hold. That is when Max came
in. He found that the code was useful for speeding up his AutoCad. And
with the work he has done since then, others have found it useful. So
it is not a waste.
> The most feedback I was able to find from Alexandre was on May 2009's
> DIB engine passing all tests thread at
> . Alexandre's single major standing complaints seem to be a lack of
> test cases and Massimo not establishing a good record with simple
> patches. Are those still valid reasons?
Yes, very much so. The thread shows that there are problems exhibited
by the engine which there are no test case for. So passing all tests
that have been previously provided are not enough. That would be an
area where simple patches can be done.
The dib engine 'blob' outside of the tree might be a maintenance issue
for someone with the lack of time, and will be very hard to review. So
something else will have to be done to get it mainline, if we ignore
the implementation choice at the moment.
But certainly not all is lost. We now know more than we did before.
More information about the wine-devel