Ian Romanick wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> Brian Paul wrote:
>> Dave Airlie wrote:
>>>> I'm looking at making the 7.5 release on Friday. The main objective of this development release will be an initial milestone / roll-out of the Gallium bits. Then, I'd like to quickly create the Mesa 7.6 branch for stabilization. git/master will then again be open to any/all development.
>>>> If this is too soon for anyone, let me know so we can work something out.
>>>> I also think a 7.4.1 release will happen soon. 7.4 had a bit of a regression in the glTexParameter() code which Roland found/fixed. Plus there's some other useful bug fixes on the 7.4 branch.
>>> I'd really like to merge the radeon-rewrite branch sooner rather than
>>> however I still think DRI2 needs some more work and I'd hate to have us
>>> release something where the interfaces haven't settled, I'd at least like
>>> to see front buffer rendering working so we run test suites on it.
>> I guess another option is to create a 7.6/stable branch on Friday, but not make the 7.5 release for a little bit. That would give us a stable branch for our work while leaving master as-is. There's no rule that 7.5 must be released before we start 7.6/stable.
> This is something that I've been wanting to discuss for some time. I
> think we should slightly adjust our release process. My suggestion is:
> * Decide on a cut-off date for new features in master.
> * At that cut-off date, make a branch for the next 7.n release.
> * Allow bug fixes, testing, etc. on that branch for some period.
> * Make the 7.n release.
> * Continue making bug fixes and, perhaps, low-impact new device support
> to that branch for the next 7.n.m release.
> This basically means that we'd do Mesa 7.5 really soon, and follow that
> with Mesa 7.5.1 in a few weeks. Mesa 7.5.1 is, basically, what Mesa 7.6
> would have been.
> I believe that we should establish at least a loose policy of which 7.n
> branches we intend to maintain.
Yes, I could go with that.
With git it's a lot easier to manage branches than it was with CVS and
I'm not sure the whole "stable" vs. "development" version model is
that useful anymore. The Mesa development releases haven't been
*that* unstable. People especially concerned about stability could
just wait for X.Y.1 versions.
If nobody argues otherwise, I'm inclined to follow your suggestion, Ian.
Any other opinions?