New Release Manager (Was: Status of xserver/debrix/modular tree?)

[Daniel Stone]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 12:57:52AM +0100, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
> >What specifically do you want to find out that's not already avaialble,
> >given the general consensus that 7.0 will be a fully modular release?
> 
> Well, a good release plan should say which components will
> be present in the modular tree, list the tasks that needs
> to be done and assign people to specific tasks.
> 
> Developers would then know better what they should do.
> Collecting feedback would help the RM sketching a
> somewhat realistic schedule.
> 
> By the way, has the RM issue been discussed at the Xdevcon?
> There's no discussion here in the list.  The only thing I
> know is that Adam Jackson volunteered and Michel daenzer
> supported him.  Nobody else replied.

The people who would work on the modular tree are, by and large, already
working on the modular tree.

> >Again, a lot of this has to do with the fact that we're woefully
> >undermanned, so the loss of one contributor can totally cripple an
> >entire portion of the project.  If we lost Roland Mainz, Xprint would
> >fall apart.  If we lost Egbert Eich, I get the feeling int10 would
> >disintegrate.  The nVidia driver is done entirely by Mark Vojkovitch,
> >with Alan Coopersmith constantly playing with merges there.  The
> >Radeon display detection stuff depends almost entirely on Ben
> >Herrenschmidt.  And so on, and so forth.
> >
> >The problem is that if one person disappears or gets unavoidably busy,
> >then entire chunks of the project can just fall off in terms of
> >development.  Witness the current situation with debrix, where the code
> >is lagging badly behind.
> 
> That's sad.  A project as visible and critical as Xorg should
> have hackers lining up to join.

You keep telling us this, but we already know it.

> Have you read this Slashdot story?
> 
>  http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/16/1916250&tid=104&tid=189&tid=106&threshold=5

I read Seth's blog; I assume that's what the story is about.

> Sounds like Seth Nickell and other Red Hat hackers are
> working on interesting stuff.  Maybe we should get in contact
> with them to see if their ongoing efforts could be coordinated
> here in the xorg mailing-list?

Er, you do realise that krh, Søren, and others are active on this list,
and that krh, Owen, Søren and Diana gave a presentation on this at XDC?

> >Maybe it already works, but my understanding that even accelerated
> >direct was not possible if you built the monolithic tree without
> >any of the Mesa bits, and then built Mesa out-of-tree.
> 
> I've built Xorg with the in-tree copy of Mesa (it doesn't build
> with the current CVS version).
> 
> Then I've built Mesa and installed it over the old libraries
> (libGL, libGLU, r200_dri.so).  Works great.

Right.  If you compiled Xorg *without* Mesa being built at the same
time, this would be useless.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20050221/25cacc03/attachment.pgp>