On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 08:38 -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Alex Deucher's message of Wed Oct 28 08:00:59 -0700 2009:
>
> > So I think the main issue here is making building the
> > xserver less daunting.
>
> The key external dependencies here are protocol headers and libdrm;
> does a
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 08:38:21AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Alex Deucher's message of Wed Oct 28 08:00:59 -0700 2009:
> > While, I'd like to delete a lot of compat cruft in the drivers as
> > well, I'm concerned about lack of user testing if we merge the
> > driver back into the
Excerpts from Rémi Cardona's message of Wed Oct 28 09:37:51 -0700 2009:
> "Release early, release often" ... or something.
I think we agree with this plan, the question is whether 'often' means
more point releases or more major releases. Point releases mean a
longer delay for new development, maj
Excerpts from Rémi Cardona's message of Wed Oct 28 08:48:21 -0700 2009:
> However, if we really want to avoid this mess again, we should
> definitely get server-side xcb done sooner than later. This way, the
> server would be fully independent of the old libs and protos.
The benefit of using xc
Le 28/10/2009 17:14, Keith Packard a écrit :
> 2005-12 1.0.1
>
> 2006-05 1.1.0
> 2006-07 1.1.1
>
> 2007-01 1.2.0
> 2007-04 1.3.0
> 2007-08 1.4.0
>
> 2008-06 1.4.1
> 2008-06
Excerpts from Daniel Stone's message of Wed Oct 28 01:39:41 -0700 2009:
>
> If we want to change this and say that once a release is made, you can
> use it if you want and we guarantee that it won't bitrot or actively get
> worse, but beyond that you're on your own ... well, we can do it. But
> i
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 08:42:00AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Peter Hutterer's message of Wed Oct 28 04:49:24 -0700 2009:
>
> > There's a bonus to stable branches. Any time spent trawling other
> > distribution's patch sets is time _wasted_. Distributions find similar bugs
> > but
Le 28/10/2009 16:38, Keith Packard a écrit :
> For protocol headers, it seems like with the recent re-work, we should
> be at the point where newer headers should remain compatible with old
> versions of the server, which at least allows you to always use the
> newest headers without fear.
IIRC, n
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Alex Deucher's message of Wed Oct 28 08:00:59 -0700 2009:
>
>> So I think the main issue here is making building the
>> xserver less daunting.
>
> The key external dependencies here are protocol headers and libdrm;
> does anyon
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:00:59AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> While, I'd like to delete a lot of compat cruft in the drivers as
> well, I'm concerned about lack of user testing if we merge the driver
> back into the server. Right now it's pretty easy to get users try a
> patch, or the lates
Excerpts from Peter Hutterer's message of Wed Oct 28 04:49:24 -0700 2009:
> There's a bonus to stable branches. Any time spent trawling other
> distribution's patch sets is time _wasted_. Distributions find similar bugs
> but they also find different ones. Which means with every point release you
Excerpts from Alex Deucher's message of Wed Oct 28 08:00:59 -0700 2009:
> So I think the main issue here is making building the
> xserver less daunting.
The key external dependencies here are protocol headers and libdrm;
does anyone have other stuff used in their driver that sees a lot of
churn?
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Peter Hutterer's message of Tue Oct 27 23:52:23 -0700 2009:
>
>> If the drivers aren't pulled in, then the server can trot along slower.
>
> And that's what's been happening to date; the server loafs along at a
> 6-month to 1-ye
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:04, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 07:39:41PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:42:40AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
>> > But, if doing 3 month releases of the whole server tree means that
>> > we'll scare OSVs away from our proje
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:42:40AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Peter Hutterer's message of Tue Oct 27 23:52:23 -0700 2009:
>
> > If the drivers aren't pulled in, then the server can trot along slower.
>
> And that's what's been happening to date; the server loafs along at a
> 6-mo
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 07:39:41PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:42:40AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > But, if doing 3 month releases of the whole server tree means that
> > we'll scare OSVs away from our project, then I wonder how they manage
> > the Linux kernel today.
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:42:40AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Peter Hutterer's message of Tue Oct 27 23:52:23 -0700 2009:
> > So the real question is - does the benefit of pulling the drivers into the
> > server outweigh the costs of releasing and maintaining multiple server
>
Excerpts from Peter Hutterer's message of Tue Oct 27 23:52:23 -0700 2009:
> If the drivers aren't pulled in, then the server can trot along slower.
And that's what's been happening to date; the server loafs along at a
6-month to 1-year release cycle. And we get few people running recent
servers b
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 01:28:40PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Peter Hutterer's message of Thu Oct 22 23:15:36 -0700 2009:
>
> > How many of these requests were driven by our permanently late release
> > cycle? i.e. would an actual 6 month release cycle classify as "shorter
> > rel
In message <1256587809-sup-...@keithp.com> you wrote:
> I can't support a 6 month cycle in my video driver, and I doubt other
> video drivers could either; hardware changes too fast. If the video
> drivers are to be re-integrated into the server, we'll need some
> compromise in how often the X serv
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 01:28:40PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > Deployment is -largely- distro driven. with our past track record regarding
> > QA I'm not sure how many distros are willing to deploy a new server update
> > during their stable cycle. At which point you end with server releases be
Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Rémi Cardona's message of Mon Oct 26 13:57:00 -0700 2009:
>
>> However, if the server "forces" changes like the Xext lib/proto
>> overhaul, then the benefits are going to be much less.
>
> We may require newer versions of the protocol headers as extensions
>
Excerpts from Rémi Cardona's message of Mon Oct 26 13:57:00 -0700 2009:
> However, if the server "forces" changes like the Xext lib/proto
> overhaul, then the benefits are going to be much less.
We may require newer versions of the protocol headers as extensions
are integrated into the server, b
Le 26/10/2009 21:28, Keith Packard a écrit :
>> tbh, I'm not convinced yet of the benefits of shorter release cycles
>> (shorter than 6 months, that is).
>
> I can't support a 6 month cycle in my video driver, and I doubt other
> video drivers could either; hardware changes too fast. If the video
>
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:53:52 +1100
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 06:32:03PM +0900, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:09:24 +1100
> > Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > If 7.6 in December 2010 seems like a good idea, then what's the
> > > point of doing 1.9 in Septemb
Excerpts from Peter Hutterer's message of Thu Oct 22 23:15:36 -0700 2009:
> How many of these requests were driven by our permanently late release
> cycle? i.e. would an actual 6 month release cycle classify as "shorter
> release interval"?
Well, 1.6 was released 6 months after 1.5, and 1.8 will
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:48:36PM +0900, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Daniel Stone's message of Thu Oct 22 12:09:24 +0900 2009:
>
> > What? Why?
>
> Doing more frequent releases will obviously reduce the lag between
> implementation and deployment; this should do lots of good for
> every
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 06:32:03PM +0900, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:09:24 +1100
> Daniel Stone wrote:
> > If 7.6 in December 2010 seems like a good idea, then what's the point
> > of doing 1.9 in September 2010? Is the thinking to ram all the
> > features we need for the ne
On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 16:48 +0900, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Daniel Stone's message of Thu Oct 22 12:09:24 +0900 2009:
>
> > What? Why?
>
> Doing more frequent releases will obviously reduce the lag between
> implementation and deployment; this should do lots of good for
> everyone in
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:48:36PM +0900, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Daniel Stone's message of Thu Oct 22 12:09:24 +0900 2009:
> > What? Why?
>
> Doing more frequent releases will obviously reduce the lag between
> implementation and deployment; this should do lots of good for
> everyone
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:09:24 +1100
Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:44:35AM +0900, Keith Packard wrote:
> > Excerpts from Alan Coopersmith's message of Thu Oct 22 05:36:30
> > +0900 2009:
> > > The current Xserver 1.8 schedule calls for it to release on
> > > 2010-3-31. I
Excerpts from Daniel Stone's message of Thu Oct 22 12:09:24 +0900 2009:
> What? Why?
Doing more frequent releases will obviously reduce the lag between
implementation and deployment; this should do lots of good for
everyone involved. I get constant requests for shorter X server
release intervals,
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:44:35AM +0900, Keith Packard wrote:
> Excerpts from Alan Coopersmith's message of Thu Oct 22 05:36:30 +0900 2009:
> > The current Xserver 1.8 schedule calls for it to release on 2010-3-31.
> > If we stick to the 6 month cadence well, then 1.9 should be released
> > o
Keith Packard wrote:
>> I'd suggest then we plan on the 7.6 katamari releasing in early
>> October 2010, close to one year after 7.5.
>
> That seems like a good schedule. One thing I'd like to see is far
> fewer packages released just before the katamari though; can you say
> what kind of issues y
Excerpts from Alan Coopersmith's message of Thu Oct 22 05:36:30 +0900 2009:
> The current Xserver 1.8 schedule calls for it to release on 2010-3-31.
> If we stick to the 6 month cadence well, then 1.9 should be released
> on 2010-9-31. (Though I still think it should be called 2.0 if the
> driver
35 matches
Mail list logo
