Hi,
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:44:20AM -0800, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 22:53, Keith Packard wrote:
2) I think the early rcs might not have been as well tested because
they relied on xextproto and randrproto versions that were not
released. Perhaps we should ensure that
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:37:31PM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
Yeah, that got caught up in unexpected holiday and/or moving continents;
by the time I'd got to it, I'd missed the feature freeze for 1.10, so
just
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 22:37 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
Yeah, and unless someone else wants to take over the stable release
branch, I'm fine continuing on as server-1.10-branch manager. The
process has been fairly smooth, so I think running 1.10 like I did 1.9
should be fine, but
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 21:14 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Do we need more formal rules for merging code? The RandR 1.4 server code
was merged before the protocol and library APIs had seen sufficient
review, but we don't have a formal process for either of those
modules. Anyone know how to help
On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 10:39:15 -0500, Adam Jackson a...@nwnk.net wrote:
The rule I've sort of had in mind for protocol changes is something
like: the protocol and client library must have official releases before
any xserver release candidate can release that implements them.
Given that they
On Feb 28, 2011, at 22:53, Keith Packard wrote:
2) I think the early rcs might not have been as well tested because
they relied on xextproto and randrproto versions that were not
released. Perhaps we should ensure that we release rc protos along
with rc servers where appropriate.
Do you
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:44:20 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com wrote:
I think that locked-step changes should be done as simultaneously as
possible.
A randrproto/extproto release should always work with current server
releases, so it should be possible to release the protocol headers
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:39:15AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 21:14 -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Do we need more formal rules for merging code? The RandR 1.4 server code
was merged before the protocol and library APIs had seen sufficient
review, but we don't have a
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:14:26PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Do we need more formal rules for merging code? The RandR 1.4 server code
was merged before the protocol and library APIs had seen sufficient
review, but we don't have a formal process for either of those
modules. Anyone know
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:52:34 +, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
I described my rough plan here:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg-devel/2010-September/013145.html
Get it started and I'll start pushing RandR patches your way. Sooner
would be better than later...
--
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:08:02AM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 17:52:34 +, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
I described my rough plan here:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg-devel/2010-September/013145.html
Get it started and I'll start pushing RandR
Hi,
Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com (01/03/2011):
I think that locked-step changes should be done as simultaneously as
possible. We should try not to merge proto updates that cause the
server to stop building (as was the case with randr for a while)
until both sets are reviewed and can
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Daniel Stone dan...@fooishbar.org wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:14:26PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
Do we need more formal rules for merging code? The RandR 1.4 server code
was merged before the protocol and library APIs had seen sufficient
review, but
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:34:54 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
A number of fixes I've had lingering in my next branch.
I was about to send out a message offering to run the 1.11 release. I'm
still having fun doing it.
Concerning the release process, are things going OK? Are
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:14:26PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:34:54 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
A number of fixes I've had lingering in my next branch.
I was about to send out a message offering to run the 1.11 release. I'm
still having
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:55:13 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
There were a few times during the last cycle where patches didn't get merged
but for no apparent reason. A simple email to the list stating something
like I'm unavailable for this week and won't be merging
On Feb 28, 2011, at 21:14, Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:34:54 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
A number of fixes I've had lingering in my next branch.
I was about to send out a message offering to run the 1.11 release. I'm
still having fun doing it.
On Feb 28, 2011, at 22:30, Keith Packard wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:55:13 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
There were a few times during the last cycle where patches didn't get merged
but for no apparent reason. A simple email to the list stating something
like I'm
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:37:40 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
wrote:
If nobody objects over the next week or so, I'll update the wiki and
calendar with a schedule for the first few 1.10.x releases.
We have a calendar? Oh, right, a google calendar. I don't use any google
apps
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 22:42:19 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston jerem...@apple.com
wrote:
Another thing that might be nice is more integration with bugzilla.
Is there a way for bugzilla to send a weekly update to xorg-devel
which details high priority (blocker, tentpole feature, performance)
bugs in
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Keith Packard kei...@keithp.com wrote:
On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:55:13 +1000, Peter Hutterer peter.hutte...@who-t.net
wrote:
There were a few times during the last cycle where patches didn't get merged
but for no apparent reason. A simple email to the list stating
21 matches
Mail list logo
