X server 1.9 release thoughts

[Keith Packard]

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:43:01 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston <jeremyhu at freedesktop.org> wrote:

> I think a 3-month major-release cycle will be very taxing, especially  
> considering the increased codebase with drivers.

We're doing 3 month releases with the intel drivers today; it's working
out pretty well as I think we're more responsive to regressions and
other bugs than we used to be.

The question is whether driver maintainers want to deal with
non-maintenance changes (like new hardware support) in the stable branch
of the X server, which will require additional work as they back-port
things from master.

> Another possibility to take some load off of the release manager might  
> be allowing "assistant release manager" (or possibly "assistant to the  
> release manager" ;>) positions for the drivers.  That way, Keith  
> doesn't need to be the gate-keeper for an increasing code-base, and  
> the driver developers still have the same manager for their driver in  
> its new location as they did in its old location.

We've already got that in places already in the server -- Peter does all
of the input review and I've been merging from him without a huge amount
of additional review.

I would expect any driver getting merged to the server to have a single
driver maintainer that sends the pull requests; there's no way I can
review Radeon or nVidia driver changes in any detail.

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100406/68f7d40a/attachment.pgp>