[Mesa-dev] Move mesa version scheme to a more common style ?

[Emil Velikov]

On 14 November 2014 16:48, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 15:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use
>>>> a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ?
>>>>
>>>> Eg.
>>>> mesa 10.4.0-rc1 -> 10.3.99.901
>>>> mesa 10.4.0-rc2 -> 10.3.99.902
>>>> ...
>>>> mesa 10.4.0     -> 10.4.0
>>>> mesa 10.4.1-rc1 -> 10.4.0.901
>>>> ... you get the idea.
>>>>
>>>> Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with
>>>> mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days,
>>>> and based on it I'll tag the first RC.
>>>
>>> Huh? What's wrong with the current thing? Can I put in an alternate
>>> suggestion of getting the other projects to switch to the mesa (and
>>> linux kernel and wine and many many many other projects) rc version
>>> naming scheme?
>>>
>> To be perfectly honest, I don't think I can think of any (apart from the
>> kernel and wine) that have a stable branch(es) and use rc. Can you
>> kindly point me to some or if you have some ideas of a search phrase
>> that would be appreciated.
>
> Hmmm... well, most projects don't *have* rc's, so it's definitely a
> reduced set. But let's see... just thinking about various software I
> use and plugging it into my favourite search engine:
>
Speaking of software that I use, KDE (with all of its glory) uses
identical scheme as the proposed.

> emacs: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu-emacs/2014-10/msg00001.html
So it seems that their 9x are the actual rc (relates to the proposal),
while their RC is an actual wake up call - guys test this because I'm
releasing in two days. Also the RC business seems to be a recent
feature as only the last to releases have it.

> openssl: https://www.openssl.org/source/ (does -beta1 instead of -rc1,
> but same idea)
That software has a special definition of {major,minor,patch} number
:P  Yet it justifies your point.

> pidgin did beta tags for 2.0, but not for all releases:
> https://hg.pidgin.im/pidgin/main/tags
>
Can not see any stable branch in there. I don't think there is any
master branch either. They have default, which is presumably the same
as master.

> BTW, it's not like I'm leaving out ones that use some other scheme...
> other ones I looked up just didn't have any such thing at all.
>
"When in Rome..." + mesa is considered part of X development = ?

-Emil