kdrive and xgl DDXes

[Daniel Stone]

On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:19:37PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> How do people feel about including the kdrive and xgl DDXes in 7.0?
> 
> Arguments for:
> 
> - Stable version number on kdrive and xgl releases is a good thing
> - kdrive has precedent for being included in releases from XFree86

KDrive is definitely more useful now.

> - xgl really needs a release at some point

But 'some point' != 'now'.

> Arguments against:
> 
> - Violates "same code, different build systems" principle, unless someone
>   writes imakefiles

Right.

> - Slaves kdrive and xgl development to the 7.0 schedule

Eh, not necessarily.  That's what branches are for, no?

> There's always the possibility of marking those DDXes highly experimental and 
> not building them by default in the official 7.0 release (though possibly by 
> default in the release candidates for coverage).  Or just doing a really 
> rapid 7.0.1 right after 7.0 that imports the other two.

Why should we do this in a bugfix release?  I thought .x.x releases were
meant to be for bug fixes, not features ...

> I'd really like to see them included in 7.0, but that may not reflect the 
> distributor perspective.  Comments?

I'm all for marking versions of xserver and releasing them, sure, but
I don't see why we should include it in 7.0, particularly if we're not
building it by default.  Why not just make regular tarballs of it and
do its development with an eye to the release schedules of 7.1 and 7.2,
when it becomes useful?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-modular/attachments/20050623/ff050889/attachment.pgp