[Mesa-dev] Mesa 9.0 release plans

[Ian Romanick]

On 09/28/2012 09:22 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On 09/28/2012 04:10 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> There are only a few patches left on master marked as candidates for the
>> branch.  These basically fall into three groups:
>>
>> - Fix mipmap generation.  There is stil one outstanding bug related to
>> integer textures.  Anuj is working on a fix (disable mipmap generation
>> for integer textures).  Once this is available, the whole series will be
>> picked.
>>
>> 299acac849eb8506de9760c94c6e8e8b1046d909 _mesa_meta_GenerateMipmap:
>> Support all texture targets by generating shaders at runtime
>> 15bf3103b48a5928321fe56fbb3ed28a0f314418 _mesa_meta_GenerateMipmap:
>> Generate separate shaders for glsl 120 / 130
>> eb1d87fb945783448cc40ad43c9cd4d98002d424 meta: Add on demand compilation
>> of per target shader programs
>>
>> - TexImage performance improvement for Google Chrome.  There's still
>> some debate about whether or not these should be picked.
>> 413c4914129cd26ca87960852d8c0264c0fb29e7 intel: Improve teximage perf
>> for Google Chrome paint rects (v3)
>> b1d0fe022dc4826dadce014ab8fe062a82f75a16 intel: Fix segfault in
>> intel_texsubimage_tiled_memcpy
>> b5891286202987dfc2606ac716050c0ee426de11 intel: Fix yet-another-bug in
>> intel_texsubimage_tiled_memcpy
>>
>> - A set of fixes for r600g.  The first had a pile of conflicts, and I
>> don't have hardware to test.  I punted this back to Marek.
>>
>> 933faae2b8669f459e7ab27d6bcbfb6f4136b6d5 r600g: flush FMASK and CMASK
>> when changing colorbuffers on Evergreen
>> 836325bf7edd797e02ab0717a05ca5c51aa1ac93 r600g: fix instance divisor on
>> Cayman
>> fd5c5384648a0d6191c19748a2d1f1148c5ee98f r600g: fix RSQ of negative
>> value on Cayman
>> 96f50d0cf7bb13507f272d2f6ef9a6fca24d18e1 r600g: fix EXP on Cayman
>>
>> My goal is to have all of these resolved by Monday or Tuesday, and we'll
>> do the release on Friday (10/5).
>>
>> Sound good?
>
> There are still a number of regressions on master vs. 8.0.  Notably,
> Pineview is in really horrible shape.  There're a few patches on the

I thought it was only a disaster on master.  Is 9.0 branch just as bad?

> list that still need to get into master...then 9.0.

Do you have a list?

> But I think we can pull that off still.