xserver ABI freeze policy

Keith Packard keithp at keithp.com
Wed Apr 30 08:53:19 PDT 2014

Aaron Plattner <aplattner at nvidia.com> writes:

> Either of these sounds fine to me.  Having the "major bug fixes only" 
> date double as the ABI freeze date has a nice simplicity to it.  That 
> window might be a tad short for us to try to target same-day support but 
> hopefully it's close enough for people.

Let's plan on making an explicit ABI/API freeze one month after the end
of the merge window.

Do you end up generating some kind of summary of API/ABI changes that we
could post soon after the end of the merge window so that we could
explicitly review that before the API/ABI was frozen?

> Sounds good to me.  Since I'm reverting the support changes in the 
> driver, I personally don't care whether the ABI number gets bumped to 18 
> or not: it's just some minor s/17/18/ in a few places if it does.

I'll bump the ABI number to ensure that all drivers get rebuilt once we
do change. We've got a 16-bit space of numbers to work with, which seems
likely to be sufficient even for X.

keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 810 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20140430/db524099/attachment.sig>

More information about the xorg-devel mailing list