Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On 11/14/2014 07:07 AM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901 ... you get the idea. Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. Does this really make it a more conventional numbering scheme? I've personally seen the 10.4.1-rc1-scheme way more often than the 10.4.0.901-scheme. In fact, I think this is the first time I've seen the latter used. But I haven't exactly gone out of my way looking for versioning schemes. Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. Shouldn't it be the other way around? IMO we should have strong arguments for *changing* it, rather than keep going as-is... Any change can break something, so only changes that have clear benefits should be done, no? I agree with this. Packagers have already figured out how to deal with Mesa's scheme. Changing it will just create more work for them. At the very least, I'd like to get buy-in from a couple distro maintainers before making such a change. AFAICT, the current scheme conveys more relevant, obvious information than the proposed one, namely that it's a release *candidate* for v10.4.1. If no blocking issues are found, it'll become the *actual* release... ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On 15/11/14 17:44, Ilia Mirkin wrote: On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 November 2014 19:50, Ilia Mirkin imir...@alum.mit.edu wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 Something else that occurred to me -- you want to still make a stable 10.3 release, so 10.3.x will come out after 10.3.99.901? Seems confusing... Not sure I fully understand what the confusing part it is. Can you elaborate ? Perhaps the following examples should clear any of your confusion: 10.3 branch: 10.3.0 10.3.0.901 (10.3.1-rc1) 10.3.0.902 (10.3.1-rc2) // if needed 10.3.1 10.3.1.901 (10.3.2-rc1) 10.3.1.902 (10.3.2-rc2) // if needed ... you get the idea. At the same time Master branch: 10.3.99 (10.4-dev) So you make this release. One might *think* that the latest 10.3.x is 10.3.99 then. But it's not. Since *after* this release, you'll put out a 10.3.2, which will have fixes that 10.3.99 doesn't have. I guess one cannot make things idiot proof (no offence meant here), but I believe that most sensible people will notice/know that the software development diverges after a certain stage. That combined with the extremely unusual approach of using 99 as minor, should be more than a clear sign. Not to mention that there will be no release off the master branch - thus there should be nothing to get confused about in the first place. It makes for a non-linear version number situation which IMO is rather confusing. See the development diverges note above. With the current version numbering scheme that ~every project uses except X.org, it's very clear what the latest release is in a particular line. Also, 10.3.99 has no connection to 10.3 at all, It (10.3.99) is based on the same code as 10.3. That seems like a clear enough connection to me. it is in fact much closer to 10.4. It *may* be closer. This is why it makes sense to call it 10.4-rc1 and not 10.3.x. One can make sense to call it many things, yet that's a matter of personal interpretation (same goes for me). It seems that despite no clear benefit of keeping the old way, mesa is destined to say stranger to the rest of X on this topic. -Emil -ilia ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On 15/11/14 17:50, Marek Olšák wrote: I've always found the X.Org versioning scheme unintuitive. This is actually for the first time after ~5 years of contributing to open source graphics that I finally understand how the X versioning works. Granted, I had never been interested in it anyway. I take we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Must admit that it took me ~5 seconds to get the idea, even without having a comprehensive list, or reading the web page. If you need to have a web page on x.org that explains it, that alone is an indication that it's too complicated. Just because something is documented it does not mean that it's too complicated for the technically educated mind. One can see plenty of examples on the net - How to rename a file in WindowsXP :) -Emil ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On 14/11/14 14:39, Emil Velikov wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901 ... you get the idea. Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. The plan is to still keep the branch point later on today, but to push the tag on Monday. OK so it seems that we have people concerned that this may cause issues/lack of consistency within mesa, a few people with neutral option and no strong supporters on the topic :'( The people have spoken - things are staying as is. -Emil ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On 14 November 2014 16:48, Ilia Mirkin imir...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 14/11/14 15:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello all,
This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use
a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ?
Eg.
mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901
mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902
...
mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0
mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901
... you get the idea.
Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome.
Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with
mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days,
and based on it I'll tag the first RC.
Huh? What's wrong with the current thing? Can I put in an alternate
suggestion of getting the other projects to switch to the mesa (and
linux kernel and wine and many many many other projects) rc version
naming scheme?
To be perfectly honest, I don't think I can think of any (apart from the
kernel and wine) that have a stable branch(es) and use rc. Can you
kindly point me to some or if you have some ideas of a search phrase
that would be appreciated.
Hmmm... well, most projects don't *have* rc's, so it's definitely a
reduced set. But let's see... just thinking about various software I
use and plugging it into my favourite search engine:
Speaking of software that I use, KDE (with all of its glory) uses
identical scheme as the proposed.
emacs: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu-emacs/2014-10/msg1.html
So it seems that their 9x are the actual rc (relates to the proposal),
while their RC is an actual wake up call - guys test this because I'm
releasing in two days. Also the RC business seems to be a recent
feature as only the last to releases have it.
openssl: https://www.openssl.org/source/ (does -beta1 instead of -rc1,
but same idea)
That software has a special definition of {major,minor,patch} number
:P Yet it justifies your point.
pidgin did beta tags for 2.0, but not for all releases:
https://hg.pidgin.im/pidgin/main/tags
Can not see any stable branch in there. I don't think there is any
master branch either. They have default, which is presumably the same
as master.
BTW, it's not like I'm leaving out ones that use some other scheme...
other ones I looked up just didn't have any such thing at all.
When in Rome... + mesa is considered part of X development = ?
-Emil
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On 14 November 2014 19:50, Ilia Mirkin imir...@alum.mit.edu wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 Something else that occurred to me -- you want to still make a stable 10.3 release, so 10.3.x will come out after 10.3.99.901? Seems confusing... Not sure I fully understand what the confusing part it is. Can you elaborate ? Perhaps the following examples should clear any of your confusion: 10.3 branch: 10.3.0 10.3.0.901 (10.3.1-rc1) 10.3.0.902 (10.3.1-rc2) // if needed 10.3.1 10.3.1.901 (10.3.2-rc1) 10.3.1.902 (10.3.2-rc2) // if needed ... you get the idea. At the same time Master branch: 10.3.99 (10.4-dev) 10.4.99 (10.5-dev) As you can see things are straight forward, plus as Daniel pointed out, using this approach the version string is actually linear :) -Emil ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: On 14 November 2014 19:50, Ilia Mirkin imir...@alum.mit.edu wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 Something else that occurred to me -- you want to still make a stable 10.3 release, so 10.3.x will come out after 10.3.99.901? Seems confusing... Not sure I fully understand what the confusing part it is. Can you elaborate ? Perhaps the following examples should clear any of your confusion: 10.3 branch: 10.3.0 10.3.0.901 (10.3.1-rc1) 10.3.0.902 (10.3.1-rc2) // if needed 10.3.1 10.3.1.901 (10.3.2-rc1) 10.3.1.902 (10.3.2-rc2) // if needed ... you get the idea. At the same time Master branch: 10.3.99 (10.4-dev) So you make this release. One might *think* that the latest 10.3.x is 10.3.99 then. But it's not. Since *after* this release, you'll put out a 10.3.2, which will have fixes that 10.3.99 doesn't have. It makes for a non-linear version number situation which IMO is rather confusing. With the current version numbering scheme that ~every project uses except X.org, it's very clear what the latest release is in a particular line. Also, 10.3.99 has no connection to 10.3 at all, it is in fact much closer to 10.4. This is why it makes sense to call it 10.4-rc1 and not 10.3.x. -ilia ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
I've always found the X.Org versioning scheme unintuitive. This is actually for the first time after ~5 years of contributing to open source graphics that I finally understand how the X versioning works. Granted, I had never been interested in it anyway. If you need to have a web page on x.org that explains it, that alone is an indication that it's too complicated. Marek On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901 ... you get the idea. Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. The plan is to still keep the branch point later on today, but to push the tag on Monday. Thanks Emil ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901 ... you get the idea. Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. Does this really make it a more conventional numbering scheme? I've personally seen the 10.4.1-rc1-scheme way more often than the 10.4.0.901-scheme. In fact, I think this is the first time I've seen the latter used. But I haven't exactly gone out of my way looking for versioning schemes. Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. Shouldn't it be the other way around? IMO we should have strong arguments for *changing* it, rather than keep going as-is... Any change can break something, so only changes that have clear benefits should be done, no? AFAICT, the current scheme conveys more relevant, obvious information than the proposed one, namely that it's a release *candidate* for v10.4.1. If no blocking issues are found, it'll become the *actual* release... ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901 ... you get the idea. Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. Huh? What's wrong with the current thing? Can I put in an alternate suggestion of getting the other projects to switch to the mesa (and linux kernel and wine and many many many other projects) rc version naming scheme? -ilia ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On 14/11/14 15:07, Erik Faye-Lund wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901 ... you get the idea. Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. Does this really make it a more conventional numbering scheme? I've personally seen the 10.4.1-rc1-scheme way more often than the 10.4.0.901-scheme. In fact, I think this is the first time I've seen the latter used. But I haven't exactly gone out of my way looking for versioning schemes. Come on Eric, seriously ? Most/all the projects that I can see on fd.o and gnome, that have stable branches use this scheme. Eg. libX11, libXext, xorg-server, evince, clutter... I would love to be proven wrong, that they are the minority. Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. Shouldn't it be the other way around? IMO we should have strong arguments for *changing* it, rather than keep going as-is... Any change can break something, so only changes that have clear benefits should be done, no? Note that we're talking about the rc versions/development branch. For releases things are as normal. Most of the times I tend to think hard before I propose something that seems ground breaking, and in this case I cannot even remotely see a case where something will break. This almost sounds like don't go outside because something can fall from the sky and hit you. No disrespect there. I'll take your and Ilia's views, and would encourage the input from someone that has done this sort of thing (stable branches). Cheers, Emil AFAICT, the current scheme conveys more relevant, obvious information than the proposed one, namely that it's a release *candidate* for v10.4.1. If no blocking issues are found, it'll become the *actual* release... ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On 14/11/14 15:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901 ... you get the idea. Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. Huh? What's wrong with the current thing? Can I put in an alternate suggestion of getting the other projects to switch to the mesa (and linux kernel and wine and many many many other projects) rc version naming scheme? To be perfectly honest, I don't think I can think of any (apart from the kernel and wine) that have a stable branch(es) and use rc. Can you kindly point me to some or if you have some ideas of a search phrase that would be appreciated. I have the feeling that X related projects tend to exclusively use proposed format, so I'm trying to keep mesa close/related to X, non-alien and consistent. Is that so much to ask for ? -Emil -ilia ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
Hi, On 14 November 2014 15:07, Erik Faye-Lund kusmab...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. Shouldn't it be the other way around? IMO we should have strong arguments for *changing* it, rather than keep going as-is... Any change can break something, so only changes that have clear benefits should be done, no? AFAICT, the current scheme conveys more relevant, obvious information than the proposed one, namely that it's a release *candidate* for v10.4.1. If no blocking issues are found, it'll become the *actual* release... You can encode that in the versions too. The other advantage is especially when checking for dependencies, that you have a linear version comparison. Cheers, Daniel ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: On 14/11/14 15:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote: On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901 ... you get the idea. Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. Huh? What's wrong with the current thing? Can I put in an alternate suggestion of getting the other projects to switch to the mesa (and linux kernel and wine and many many many other projects) rc version naming scheme? To be perfectly honest, I don't think I can think of any (apart from the kernel and wine) that have a stable branch(es) and use rc. Can you kindly point me to some or if you have some ideas of a search phrase that would be appreciated. Hmmm... well, most projects don't *have* rc's, so it's definitely a reduced set. But let's see... just thinking about various software I use and plugging it into my favourite search engine: emacs: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu-emacs/2014-10/msg1.html openssl: https://www.openssl.org/source/ (does -beta1 instead of -rc1, but same idea) pidgin did beta tags for 2.0, but not for all releases: https://hg.pidgin.im/pidgin/main/tags BTW, it's not like I'm leaving out ones that use some other scheme... other ones I looked up just didn't have any such thing at all. I have the feeling that X related projects tend to exclusively use proposed format, so I'm trying to keep mesa close/related to X, non-alien and consistent. Is that so much to ask for ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7DdyChR8JU -ilia ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On Friday, November 14, 2014 02:39:24 PM Emil Velikov wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901 ... you get the idea. Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. The plan is to still keep the branch point later on today, but to push the tag on Monday. Thanks Emil Using .99.9xx seems fine by me, but I don't have a strong preference either way. However, it would be great if we could be consistent about using '.0' on the first release in a new series. For example: ftp://ftp.freedesktop.org/pub/mesa/10.3/MesaLib-10.3.0.tar.gz the tarball is named 10.3.0 but the directory is called 10.3 (and only contains 10.3.0 and RCs - stable releases go in directories called 10.3.1, etc.) glxinfo uses 10.3.0: OpenGL core profile version string: 3.3 (Core Profile) Mesa 10.3.0 (git-1b12af3) but the tag is called mesa-10.3, not mesa-10.3.0. I believe that consistently using the .0 would making life a little easier for packagers. --Ken signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
Am 14.11.2014 um 15:39 schrieb Emil Velikov: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 mesa 10.4.1-rc1 - 10.4.0.901 ... you get the idea. Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, and based on it I'll tag the first RC. The plan is to still keep the branch point later on today, but to push the tag on Monday. FWIW both schemes look reasonable to me. So I don't really care one way or the other. Roland ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
Re: [Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov emil.l.veli...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? Eg. mesa 10.4.0-rc1 - 10.3.99.901 mesa 10.4.0-rc2 - 10.3.99.902 ... mesa 10.4.0 - 10.4.0 Something else that occurred to me -- you want to still make a stable 10.3 release, so 10.3.x will come out after 10.3.99.901? Seems confusing... -ilia ___ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
