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

[Kenneth Graunke]

On Friday, November 14, 2014 02:39:24 PM Emil Velikov 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.
> 
> The plan is to still keep the branch point later on today, but to push
> the tag on Monday.
> 
> Thanks
> Emil

Using .99.9xx seems fine by me, but I don't have a strong preference either 
way.

However, it would be great if we could be consistent about using '.0' on the 
first release in a new series.

For example:

ftp://ftp.freedesktop.org/pub/mesa/10.3/MesaLib-10.3.0.tar.gz

the tarball is named 10.3.0 but the directory is called "10.3" (and only 
contains 10.3.0 and RCs - stable releases go in directories called 10.3.1, 
etc.)

glxinfo uses 10.3.0:

   OpenGL core profile version string: 3.3 (Core Profile) Mesa 10.3.0 
(git-1b12af3)

but the tag is called mesa-10.3, not mesa-10.3.0.

I believe that consistently using the ".0" would making life a little easier 
for packagers.

--Ken
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20141114/f2dd89da/attachment.sig>