On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 11:47 +0000, Colin Guthrie wrote: > 'Twas brillig, and Carl Worth at 10/03/09 01:54 did gyre and gimble: > > Here is the first release candidate in preparation for the upcoming > > 2.7.0 release. > > What is the (rough) timescale for the first 2.7.x release?
A few weeks or so. We've got an intel-2d-release bug for preparing for
this, but I think it currently has several bugs on it that will not
feasibly be fixed. I plan to make that list more reasonable soon, at
which point tracking that bug will be much more useful.
> > All changes from 2.6.0 to 2.6.99.901
> > ------------------------------------
>
> Does it not make more sense to list the differences between 2.6.3 and
> 2.6.99.901?
I think this is a case where the version-numbering scheme doesn't make
it very obvioous what's actually going on with the code. The 2.6.3
release was made from an earlier branch ("2.6") than 2.6.99.90 (which is
from the "2.7" branch). Maybe even then it would have made sense to list
the changes from 2.6.3 to 2.6.99.01. But I don't know of a trivial way
to generate such a list.
It would be misleading to take the output of something like "git log
2.6.3..2.6.99.901" since that would list several bug fixes as being
"new" since 2.6.3 when in fact the same fixes were already cherry-picked
to the 2.6 branch and were present in 2.6.3.
Any suggestions are welcome though.
-Carl
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xorg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
