I’m a little uncomfortable with how much work you are doing out of tree and without much review from us. Of course you are free to do whatever you want, but that does mean when it comes time to integrate these changes, it may wind up being much more work to merge things than if you upstream them piece by piece (or even just work with one of us and let us upstream them a bit at a time.)
I’m happy to help you upstream things, or even do the bulk of the work on that, if you don’t want to.
I think he’s still working out designs, but I’m sure he’d appreciate the help.
Maybe make a separate branch for 3d Accel and multi head because it touches so much stuff in app server
I am afraid that code review will reduce my productivity multiple times. Also I currently use Meson for build system. Driver architecture may be refactored multiple times before release. I think that it is fine that some driver components will be published to HaikuPorts, at least for first time.
If you want to see the code, just say that. It can be published to GitHub for example.
I’d like to see it, if just to learn
Code that is not published has a productivity of 0
Maybe a feature branch in Haiku tree? This is not dangerous for main branch. Also some changes can be cherry picked in main branch when the review is done. But nothing blocking for experimentation.
I don’t think that this comment helps the discussion in a positive way. Especially considering recent events in community and this forum.
So Haiku developers can’t have a say, because of recent events in community and this forum? I’m confused.
I am confused too, what was going on here then?
Then Microsoft Windows programmers productivity will be zero 
It is not absolutely necessary to put all drivers in Haiku source tree. It can be also placed at GitHub and HaikuPorts, I see no problem with that.
I disagree, out of tree drivers are almost worthless to users, in any case, why bot atleast publish the source? waddlesplash already offered that he might integrate it
He did offer to put the source on github, just a couple of posts up.
While I agree it’s better to have it in tree eventually, I think most users would use an out of tree driver if it has advantages (for example nvidia drivers on Linux are widely used, even if they are also complained about a lot).
Isn’t this discussion veering off topic now?
nVidia drivers are used out of tree because they are closed source, not because it has been chosen to do so. So not really the same thing.
To clarify:
I just commented on this which I believe it could be stated in a better way. I didn’t imply, in any way, that devs should not have a say.
I think @X512 knows best about how to proceed since he’s doing all the hard portion of this work.
Why? It can be easily installed or even preinstalled with system. Haiku distribution itself use a lot out of tree packages critical to operation such as libstdc++.so or freetype2.
I guess graphics drivers are useless on Windows then? They’re usually not included with the OS.
It’s kinda weird how Linux and Haiku are so fragile that every piece of software has to be in one repository or the whole house of cards will collapse.
Actually Microsoft has been doing a lot of driver capture for windows, very walled garden.
Personally i don’t care where the code lives, so long as it can be accessed.
We have a stable ABI, including for drivers, to allow 3rd party developers to write their own software and drivers as they need. This makes the situation a lot better than it is for Linux in that aspect. It would be sad to not make use of that opportunity.
Our code review process is indeed very picky (on code style and architecture) and for experimental code when writing a prototype, that isn’t appropriate. There will be time later on to consider writing a final version of the code that we can maintain for the next few decades, but no one is able to do that on the first try. Starting with a more “hacky” version of the code first is not a problem.
Yes but nVidia drivers are a strong counter example to “out of tree drivers are almost worthless to users”, which is what I was replying to, so the fact they are closed source was not relevant.