There are many more readers than members

[bridgman]

Sorry, I'm drawing a blank on what that plan was. Or did we just discuss the need for a plan ?

You mentioned in your first post from this thread that the order of implementation was essential, but that is going to become increasingly hard to provide now that the re-architecture work (which enforced a degree of sequentiality on the deliverables) is largely completed.

A year ago I was able to give you a pretty good summary of the sequence in which work would be done, but that sequence was determined by architectural constraints ("first you pillage, *then* you burn") not because I could control (or even predict) what the community developers would be doing.

Now that the transition from "old stack" to "new stack" is largely completed, we're back to the normal style of open source development, where new features and initiatives are largely independent of each other and progress depending on the degree of interest each developer has in a given area.

I can tell you the priorities that AMD is setting for the short term (Evergreen, getting ready for Fusion, supporting the other devs which probably touches on all the areas a bit) but that's really the only things we can predict with any confidence.

Put differently, the roadmap now has a lot of parallel lines with little arrows heading off to the right, all running more or less independently.

[HokTar]

Edit: I tried...

I might be in a misunderstanding. Are you really saying that there is no such roadmap? So everyone is just "cluelessly" developing what he feels a good next step?
(I might exaggerate here a bit but I hope those involved get my point.)

[HokTar]

I guess what I'm saying is that everything we know *has* been communicated, and that you're asking for a concise summary of plans which have not been made yet...

... and as a result you ain't gettin' them

You know that my only problem is that you say nothing about the plan which we discussed in February and I referred to that in my first post in this thread. Back then you said (or wrote actually) that it is on your todo list.

I might have made one mistake: I mentioned the (almost) banned word "ETA".

Could you please just ignore that and outline a "roadmap"?

I tried to give an example of what I mean but maybe that is not a good/feasible one. As an engineer I trust other engineers (at least those who proved themselves worthy of it ) so I think you can figure out an intermediate solution.

Thanks for your time, anyway. I really appreciate it.

[bridgman]

Obviously these were not direct questions, anyway. Some heads up are always appreciated, though.

On the other hand I think we all know the answers which are "not yet" for all questions. Please reread my previous post to understand my point!

I guess what I'm saying is that everything we know *has* been communicated, and that you're asking for a concise summary of plans which have not been made yet...

... and as a result you ain't gettin' them

[bridgman]

I'm sure glisse will update his blog when 600g runs gears.

No plans that I know of for GL 3 work over the summer but *those* plans are just being discussed now as well

Reducing voltage requires that you first reduce engine and memory clocks. Right now I believe the focus is on reliably reducing engine and memory clocks. PCIE lanes are probably orthogonal but don't think anyone has looked at reducing them on the fly yet.

[HokTar]

You just asked the three most important questions in my opinion. Can we get a dev to answer that?

Obviously these were not direct questions, anyway. Some heads up are always appreciated, though.

On the other hand I think we all know the answers which are "not yet" for all questions. Please reread my previous post to understand my point!

[bridgman]

I saw them but plans for most of the questions you asked are still under discussion. It's likely that GL3 will build on Gallium3D but I don't think the Intel devs are comfortable with that yet, and the whole "new GL3 doesn't include old GL support unless you run in compatibility profile but that means you need multiple drivers or need to run in compatibility profile all the time which kinda defeats the purpose of cleaning up the GL API" discussion is just starting now. I don't think we're at the point where ETAs make sense, just "everyone's working on the plan and developing the low-hanging fruit in parallel".

I don't think there are any real app dependencies on GL3 yet so we had been concentrating more on shorter term things like PM and Evergreen support.

All of the dependencies which are understood are maintained in the ugly little chart at the bottom of RadeonFeature.

[Hans]

@bridgeman:

It seems you missed my posts around #27 and #30. Or maybe they are not worthy to answer. No problem in that case either.

@everybody

Seriously guys, why are we talking about flamewars or almost-flamewars? This forum was interesting to read up until a couple of weeks ago.
Can't we just stop it because it is pretty obvious that it is not going to lead anywhere?

Why don't we talk about if the r600g can pass glxgears? If there's someone to work on opengl 3.x during the summer? If power management can change voltages and pci lanes? Etc, etc.

You just asked the three most important questions in my opinion. Can we get a dev to answer that?

[HokTar]

@bridgeman:

It seems you missed my posts around #27 and #30. Or maybe they are not worthy to answer. No problem in that case either.

@everybody

Seriously guys, why are we talking about flamewars or almost-flamewars? This forum was interesting to read up until a couple of weeks ago.
Can't we just stop it because it is pretty obvious that it is not going to lead anywhere?

Why don't we talk about if the r600g can pass glxgears? If there's someone to work on opengl 3.x during the summer? If power management can change voltages and pci lanes? Etc, etc.

[bridgman]

But if the topic of discussion is whether or not the devs are incompetent and you can't make statements in the affirmative without being in breach then the subject needs to be terminated.

And when dealing with a thread you can also ban the others behaving in a similar way or simply close the thread.

But I think the point he was trying to make was fairly consistent and was that the devs were incompetent and that without him shaming the them into action the driver would never be released and that the lack of this current "stable release" was his supporting argument. Kind of circular really.

I wonder if our different viewpoints are a result of you looking more at what is said during the worst parts (typically the end of the thread) and me looking more at "how we got there", ie the progression throughout the thread.

I think 4 patterns cover the options pretty well. I'm using "first" for the original poster and "mob" for all the folks who respond :

Pattern 1
first : I don't like the way the drivers are being developed
mob : you're stupid
first : you're stupid too

Pattern 2
first : I don't like the way the drivers are being developed
mob : I disagree and here's why
first : you're stupid
mob : you're stupid too

In the first case the people responding are clearly at fault; banning or blaming the original poster would be wrong. All parties are making personal attacks but I would blame whoever escalated ("mob" in this case).

In the second case the original poster was the one who escalated to personal attacks. Again, all parties are making personal attacks but the original poster is to blame.

Pattern 3
first : the developers are stupid
mob : I disagree and here's why
first : you're stupid
mob : you're stupid too

Pattern 4
first : the developers are stupid
mob : you're stupid too

In pattern 3 I would say the original poster is clearly to blame, even though both parties are making personal attacks by the end. The OP was given a chance to clean up the discussion but failed to do so.

Pattern 4 is what the etiquette books tell us to avoid, since it's a no-win right from the start. These are the threads you said should have just been closed, and I think you're right.

The question is which pattern(s) best match the threads we've seen here. My reading was that patterns 2 and 3 were closest to the mark, and those are the ones where after a general warning I would regard the original poster as being the one responsible for the poor tone of discussion and start waving the banhammer in their direction. Maybe closing the thread a second time would have been better, hard to say.

How many of the others were warned with bans? From what I read I don't think it was many at all.

Just a couple AFAIK. The point is that they backed off and OP did not.

Well his main point in itself looks like a personal attack and personal attacks have been allowed in the past. You can't discuss the point Gordboy was making without being personal so perhaps the entire discussion should've been shutdown.

Yeah, in hindsight any thread that *starts* with a personal attack should probably be closed before it has a chance to go any further. I hadn't thought about that until now.

I'm not here to try to validate the points he was trying to make by the way. Especially when I don't share his views. When it comes to discussions I prefer to keep it to "just the facts Mam" It makes for more productive discussions in the end. I'm just not seeing consistency in his banning though.

Again, it depends on the reason for the ban. If it was "ignoring warnings from the moderator and continuing to do what they were told to stop", I think only one poster did that. If the ban was for the general tone of discussion only, then I agree that the ban was inconsistent.