Jon Leech wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 25, 1999 at 07:57:10AM -0500, Stephen J Baker wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Oh, no! Steve's gone over to the dark side!
> >
> > I think this is beyond debate now - we are voting.
>
> I think you're wildly optimistic about "voting" == "end of debate".
> However, FWIW my preference at this point is for the context-independent
> pointers, and moving on to finish this sometime before the millennium.
>
> There are a whole bunch of other issues which need to be resolved. I
> propose starting with the library naming conventions and these two points:
>
> (a) the version number of a particular implementation cannot be part
> of the mandated name of a library destined for multiple
> implementations.
Can you elaborate? I was going to implement a library naming change
for Mesa 3.1: old name = libMesaGL.so.3.1 new name = libGL.so.1.2.030100
Is this a bad idea?
> > We *MUST* come up with
> > a final decision - and it needs to be before Mesa 3.1 hits the
> > streets.
>
> Rather than being gated by the release schedule of some particular
> implementation, I want to make this into an ARB extension. This means
> (a) the extension specification must be complete by November 8th and (b)
> it will not be finalized until the ARB gets to vote on it December 7-8.
Since I want to finish/release Mesa 3.1 pretty soon, I think I'll be
omitting support for GetProcAddress() in 3.1. I plan on a more frequent
release cycle in the future so hopefully this'll be settled in time
for the next release.
-Brian
