[ANNOUNCE] glamor 0.5.0

[Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia]

On Aug 10, 2012, at 09:54, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
> <jeremyhu at freedesktop.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On Aug 10, 2012, at 03:37, Zhigang Gong <zhigang.gong at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> to try a full functional xserver with glamor, it’s recommended to use the
>>> following xserver version:
>>> 
>>> commit a615b90cab7569fae9d123e4da1d3373c871d84b
>>> 
>>> Author: Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com>
>>> 
>>> Date:   Wed Mar 14 11:32:36 2012 -0700
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   Bump version number to 1.12.99.0
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   Now that 1.12 has branched, reset the version on master to a
>>> 
>>>   development number.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Why is such an old server version recommended?  Surely tip of server-1.12-branch is superior to this branch point+1 on master?  And I'd really expect tip of master to be a better candidate than that given the development nature of glamor.  Can you please clarify?
> 
> That should be fine.  The commit is question is just the most recent
> commit on master that still works prior to the changes that broke the
> module ordering that broke glamor.

I think you're mistaken.  The commit referenced is just xorg-server-1.12.0 + version change.  It is significantly before the module loading changes.