On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Chad Versace <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed 22 Oct 2014, Emil Velikov wrote: >> On 11/09/14 15:43, Chad Versace wrote: >> > On 09/07/2014 05:37 PM, Jordan Justen wrote: > >> > Having a year between 1.3 and 1.4, I'm reluctant to introduce delays. >> > To avoid >> > delays like that in the future, I'm thinking that waffle should adopt a >> > short, >> > time-based release cycle. Maybe every 4 to 6 weeks. With a cycle that >> > short... >> > >> > 1. There would be no pressure to delays a release for a feature. >> > Because >> > a new release is right around the corner. >> > 2. If there's nothing interesting to release for a given cycle, then we >> > could just skip doing that release. >> > 3. The release process would, by necessity of frequency, become mostly >> > automated. That automation would allow anyone (not just me) to do >> > a release. >> > >> > I haven't *decided* on any of the above. Just thinking that it may be a >> > good >> > idea. What do you think? >> > > >> All of those sounds ok with me, yet I hope that the level of automation >> is better than the one we have in mesa. > > I began writing a python script to fully automate that process. The > script builds waffle, runs its testsuite, makes a git tag, creates > a tarball and signs it, uploads everything, and then writes out > a template announcement email. > > I should dig that script up, clean it up, and commit to the repo.
That sounds cool. I wonder if it is something Emil could copy and tweak for piglit. >> > So... let's try not to delay 2.0. And let's make releases more frequent. >> > Then >> > Emil's work on issue #9 will land quickly enough. >> > >> >> Afaict one of your concerns may be bumping the library major version due >> to the waffle_get_proc_address API change. >> Admittedly I have not checked if piglit and the wfl utils will work if >> we leave the interface as is and I'm planning to do so tomorrow. If >> possible I'll avoid the API change, otherwise I might consider adding >> another entry point in order to preserve backwards compatibility - ie. >> waffle_get_proc_address2(). >> >> Either one of those will get is in waffle-1.5 land which does not sound >> as scary :P > > I would like to avoid breaking ABI compatibility unless the alternatives > are really really bad. Because breaking ABI compatibility, being > really^3 bad, is even worse than really^2 bad. I discussed introducing > waffle_get_proc_address2() with Jordan in person, and (if I recall > correctly), he was ok with the idea. Yeah, I agree with you. It be nice to keep backward compatibility if possible. -Jordan _______________________________________________ waffle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/waffle
