1.11 release process
daniel at fooishbar.org
Wed Mar 2 03:51:53 PST 2011
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:30:52PM -0800, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> On 03/ 1/11 09:52 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 09:14:26PM -0800, Keith Packard wrote:
> >> Do we need more formal rules for merging code? The RandR 1.4 server code
> >> was merged before the protocol and library APIs had seen sufficient
> >> review, but we don't have a formal process for either of those
> >> modules. Anyone know how to help with that? -- We don't have an official
> >> protocol tree maintainer at this point, although Daniel Stone did
> >> volunteer to put together another proposal for merging those trees
> >> together, and if that happened, maybe we could convince him to run a
> >> couple of cycles as release manager.
> > Yeah, that got caught up in unexpected holiday and/or moving continents;
> > by the time I'd got to it, I'd missed the feature freeze for 1.10, so
> > just shuffled it down my TODO list and moved on. I could try again for
> > 1.11, and am happy to maintain it.
> > I described my rough plan here:
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg-devel/2010-September/013145.html
> Seems like it would make things like dropping RandR 1.4 but keeping the
> new Sync version for 1.10 a little harder, but maybe that will just provide
> additional encouragement to get the protocol changes locked down farther in
> advance of the server release.
Yeah, definitely keeping them locked down makes sense, but I envision
the API looking somewhat like this:
rather than having everything depend on a specific version of xproto.
This will make it a _lot_ easier to maintain a -next tree that can just
be a random amalgamation of whatever unstable protocol changes people
are working on.
Does that make sense?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the xorg-devel