[Mesa-dev] Mesa 10.2 release plan strawman

[Ian Romanick]

On 04/07/2014 03:27 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org> writes:
> 
>> On 04/07/2014 09:14 AM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 04/04/2014 05:52 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Fast forwarding 3 months from the 10.1 release (March 4th, planned for
>>>>>> February 28th) is May 30th.  I'd like to propose the following set of dates:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May 2nd: Feature freeze / 10.2 branch created.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> May 16th: RC1
>>>>>
>>>>> Same comment as last time. It's not clear to me that we need a week
>>>>> between the branch and RC1. We're not going to get users testing the
>>>>> branch until there's an RC that distros can offer.
>>>>
>>>> The thinking behind having some gap is that a lot of people don't change
>>>> from feature work to bug fixing until the branch is made.  There are
>>>> usually a bunch of bug fixes landed right after the branch is made...
>>>> there's also often a bunch of... chaos right before the branch is made.
>>>>  Having an RC that doesn't build, has lot of known bugs, etc is useless.
>>>>  Having a time gap between features landing and making RC1 allows things
>>>> to settle down a bit.
>>>>
>>>> I thought your complaint before was that a week wasn't long enough.
>>>> That's why I bumped it to two weeks this time.  I guess I must have
>>>> misunderstood the concern.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I also don't see the point in having the branch but no RC.
>>
>> What's the point of having an RC is that is complete garbage?  If you
>> can explain that to me, I will do the work of creating it.  Otherwise,
>> I'll just skip the pointless busywork kthanks.
> 
> Mesa master runs for me almost all the time, and I haven't experienced
> Mesa master being any less likely to run right around the branchpoints.
> So, I disagree with you saying that not delaying would produce a garbage
> RC.

That doesn't match my experience doing the last 5+ Mesa releases, but we
can try it and see.  There's always a bunch of work that lands in the
last week before the branch that introduce regressions in some drivers
or build breaks for some other Mesa developers.

I feel pretty strongly about have 4 weeks between the branch and the
release.  We generally don't even start looking at bugs until the
branch, and less than a month means that difficult bugs are unlikely to
get resolved.  The extra day or two of lag in the review -> master ->
stable-branch progression is also a factor.  On 10.1 we had a number of
fairly important fixes that just missed the release.

A 1 week cadence for RCs would result in 4 RCs.  That seems somewhat
excessive.  Do you have a suggestion for RC pacing?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20140411/237de830/attachment.sig>