[ANNOUNCE] xorg-server 1.10.2

[Peter Hutterer]

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:24:37AM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> Hi Cyril,
> 
> My RC2 release notes indicated that I didn't expect to include any changes before the final release.  If I had known that these were regressions, I surely would've pushed to get these changes into master.  In order to avoid communication problems like this in the future, I've updated the wiki with instructions on how to communicate "Do Not Release" issues:
> http://www.x.org/wiki/Server110Branch
> 
> 
> As for specific issues ...
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that the "crash after setting root background pixmap to None, then setting color" issue was not a regression.  Another user contacted me on Friday about this crash (hence the release delay), but he was unable to reproduce it reliably on either 1.10.1 nor 1.10.2 RC2.  That code has been that way for quite some time, so it seemed to me that this was not a regression.  Perhaps something else is now stressing that code-path.  Can you confirm that this really is a regression from 1.10.2 and offer a reliable way to confirm that it is a regression?
> 
> Regarding #36986, I was unfortunately unaware of the scope of the issue.  I was under the impression that this was a broken test rather than a broken server.  I've since CC'd myself on that bug and marked it as a blocker for xserver-1.10.

yes, it's a broken test and can be ignored. I got a fair number of comments
on the patches to fix it but no reviews on the latest patch, so it's not in
master yet.
http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/5508/
Either way, a broken test shouldn't hold up the release.

Cheers,
  Peter

> If these issues are as big as you are making them seem, then I'm inclined to shorten the 1.10.3 release cycle.
> 
> --Jeremy
> 
> 
> On May 30, 2011, at 02:16, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> 
> > Jeremy Huddleston <jeremyhu at freedesktop.org> (28/05/2011):
> >> xorg-server-1.10.2 is the second release off of the stable 1.10
> >> branch.  Aside from two crash fixes for the XQuartz DDX, it is
> >> identical to RC2.  The 1.10 branch is now open for general
> >> nominations.
> > 
> > Sorry, but I wouldn't call that one stable. It introduces a known
> > regression from 1.10.1, as seen on:
> > 1. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36986
> > 2. http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/2011-May/022455.html
> >     (aka. <20110523102607.GC2180 at mraw.org> if you want to grep your
> >     maildir)
> > 
> > Should I have bumped bug importance to critical or blocker? Or done
> > anything differently?
> > 
> > Mraw,
> > KiBi.
> 
>