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 anyone
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
release
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
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
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. Is
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-month to
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:04, Bryce Harrington br...@canonical.com 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
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?
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 latest
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 server is
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 be
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:53:52 +1100
Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org 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 dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
If 7.6 in December 2010 seems like a good idea, then what's the
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
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, but
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
are
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 being
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 dan...@fooishbar.org 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
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, 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 involved.
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
drivers
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 you've
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
on
23 matches
Mail list logo
