Timo Jyrinki wrote: > 2008/8/20 Brian Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> What I'd probably do then is create a mesa-7.2 branch, based on 7.1, >> which will be a stable, bug-fix branch without GEM. >> >> Then, designate mesa/master as the new-feature / GEM / 7.3 development >> area. I'd also consider merging gallium-0.1 into master into that. > > Not that I'd know anything about anything, but from user point of view > 7.0 branch has seen quite a lot of updates and fixes for a stable > branch, including Intel GLSL support, ATI fixes etc. The only possibly > big thing (besides code restructuring etc) in 7.1 release notes is > GL_EXT_texture_from_pixmap, which might be not too useful before GEM > etc. is also there. So, is there a point of having a stable 7.2 with > not so many user-visible improvements (I might have missed some big > ones), while GEM is quite likely actually being deployed for eg. > Fedora 10, in other words stabilized?
Unfortunately, not many of the Mesa developers note their changes/fixes in the docs/relnotes*.html files. There's quite a few DRI driver fixes/changes that haven't been documented. -Brian ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Mesa3d-dev mailing list Mesa3d-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mesa3d-dev
