Jakob Bornecrantz <wallbra...@gmail.com> writes: > A half backed idea would be to have to run a opt in slightly unstable > branch, instead of going full multi-branch development model. Where > bug-fixes can go in freely, small features can go in after a review > of the changes by the module maintainer. What that means in practice > is that driver developers can develop new features in their drivers > but any new feature touching shared parts needs to get reviewed. The > idea behind the branch is to be flexible if the situation change. So > the branch might be restarted if the parties who are investing time > in it agree to it. There could also be discussion if we want to base > stable releases of it or master directly. Tho given the feel of the > rest of the community stable will be based of master and slightly > unstable will restart after that. > > Basically I will be running this branch either way, I'm just > wondering if this is something that community has interest in it > (given that the community are okay with me picking parts I like from > stable branches into it and merging that back to master, with parts > I'm interested in is core-mesa, st/mesa, st/dri, st/xorg and svga, > also given that the change make sense)?
We essentially bundle Mesa with the release of our software. This model sounds much more in line with the resources we have available for validation. It is definitely something we're interested in. We would need some type of tarball releases though. Ideally these would be "official" Mesa releases, but we could make do without that. -tom _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
