xserver ABI freeze policy
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
Size: 810 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the xorg-devel