Re: [Mesa3d-dev] RFC: Proposed mesa_7_5_branch and mesa_7_6_branch freeze for release

[Ian R. <id...@fr...>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> Am Tuesday 22 September 2009 22:46:59 schrieb Ian Romanick:
>> I would like to open XDC by shipping Mesa 7.5.2 and 7.6.  In order to
>> make that happen, I propose the following:
>>
>> - Freeze both branches at 12:01AM PDT 9/25 (this upcoming Friday).
>>
>> - I will tag both trees at that time.  One will get mesa_7_5_2_rc1, and
>> the other will get mesa_7_6_rc1.
>>
>> - Once those tags appear, please test whatever drivers *you* care about
>> on whatever platforms *you* care about.
>>
>> - Report any new regressions to bugzilla.  If you find something that
>> you believe is an absolute show stopper, mark it as such.  We'll discuss
>>  whether we want to block the releases for it.
>>
>> For 7.6, I want to set the bar for blocking the release very, very high.
>>  At least one distro really wants to use 7.6, and their freeze is
>> perilously soon.  IMO, pretty much only build failures or "7.6 make my
>> computer catch on fire, but 7.5.1 does not" are blockers.
>>
>> I had intended to post this RFC quite some time ago, but life issues
>> outside of $JOB have distracted me for the last few weeks.  The time has
>> just slipped by.  Aside from the absurdly compressed schedule, this
>> seems to be what most other projects do, and I think Mesa should to.
>> We've partially done this in the past, but our process could use a
>> little more, well, process. :)
>>
>> Opinions?
> 
> What does freezing the trees mean, exactly? Only commit fixes for show-stopper 
> bugs?

That's the idea.

> I'm a bit unhappy about the extremely short time between rc1 and release; if I 
> understand you correctly, you want to release 7.6 for XDC next week, so that 
> gives only three days or so between the two. I've only got on the "test 
> mesa_7_6_branch" bandwagon a short while ago, and I won't be available this 
> weekend. I realize that the branch has existed for a longer time, so it's my 
> own fault.

No, you and Keith are 100% correct.  This is rubbish, and it's my fault
for falling asleep at the wheel.  That's also why the subject is "proposed".

> In the future, perhaps it would be nice to have an rc1 pretty soon after the 
> branch is created, as a kind of wake-up call to get testing for lazy people 
> like myself.

It seems like the right answer is to decide on a schedule when the
branch is created.  That may include an RC really soon, or it may not.
I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it.  I completely agree
that collectively deciding on the release schedule in advance is the
right thing.

> On the other hand, I believe the r300 driver is actually in rather good shape, 
> so I'm not too worried. There are definitely some bugs that I would like to 
> have seen fixed before 7.6, but I don't think they really qualify as show-
> stoppers.

It seems like there has a lot of good stabilization work on the drivers
that people care about.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkq6vVgACgkQX1gOwKyEAw9e3wCfdrJjgIrzsRRCKWHN4mutNtk2
xDQAn1ygJBHKMeaaF9f7f9bfzqyI0V5J
=f0ix
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----