[Mesa-dev] Merge criteria for glsl2 branch

[Tom Stellard]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 06:34:43PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > As everyone knows, a group of us at Intel have been rewriting Mesa's
> > GLSL compiler.  The work started out-of-tree as a stand alone compiler.
> >  We moved all of our work to the glsl2 branch in the Mesa tree as soon
> > as we had some actual code being generated.  This was about month ago.
> > Since that time we have implemented quite a bit more code generation and
> > a complete linker.  The compiler is not done, but it gets closer every day.
> >
> > I think now is the time to start discussing merge criteria.  It is well
> > known that the Intel graphics team favors quarterly releases.  In order
> > to align with other people's release schedules, we'd really like to have
> > the new compiler in a Mesa release at the end of Q3 (end of September /
> > beginning of October).  That's just over two months from now.  In order
> > to have a credible release, the compiler needs to be merged to master
> > before then.  A reasonable estimate puts the end of August as the latest
> > possible merge time.  Given how far the compiler has come in the last
> > month, I have a lot of faith in being able to hit that target.
> >
> > We have developed our own set of merge requirements, and these are
> > listed below.  Since this is such a large subsystem, we want to solicit
> > input from the other stakeholders.
> >
> >  * No piglit regressions, except draw_buffers-05.vert, compared to
> >    master in swrast, i965, or i915.
> >
> >  * Any failing tests do not crash (segfault, assertion failure, etc.).
> 
> How about when you hit this goal, you merge master on that day into
> your branch, retest and let everyone know.
> 
> Give people a week for testing other drivers, I'm sure some of us r300
> people can do some regression tests at that point,
> 

I like this idea.  It would be nice to have a chance to test it out
before it gets merged into master, so we can avoid having a flood of
bug reports when it is merged.

> I'm sure if it all just builds in the branch someone will get around
> to doing regression tests on r300 before then anyways.
> 

Personally, I am really interested in the new frontend, so if I could
build it today, I would be testing it out. (It doesn't build for me right
now, because I don't have libdrm_intel).  I think the sooner people can
build and test it the better.

-Tom