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

Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
Mon Nov 17 07:47:32 PST 2014

On 15/11/14 17:44, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14 November 2014 19:50, Ilia Mirkin <imirkin at alum.mit.edu> 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 ->
>>>> mesa 10.4.0-rc2 ->
>>>> ...
>>>> mesa 10.4.0     -> 10.4.0
>>> Something else that occurred to me -- you want to still make a stable
>>> 10.3 release, so 10.3.x will come out after Seems
>>> confusing...
>> Not sure I fully understand what the confusing part it is. Can you elaborate ?
>> Perhaps the following examples should clear any of your confusion:
>> 10.3 branch:
>> 10.3.0
>> (10.3.1-rc1)
>> (10.3.1-rc2) // if needed
>> 10.3.1
>> (10.3.2-rc1)
>> (10.3.2-rc2) // if needed
>> ... you get the idea.
>> At the same time
>> Master branch:
>> 10.3.99 (10.4-dev)
> So you make this release. One might *think* that the latest 10.3.x is
> 10.3.99 then. But it's not. Since *after* this release, you'll put out
> a 10.3.2, which will have fixes that 10.3.99 doesn't have.
I guess one cannot make things idiot proof (no offence meant here), but
I believe that most sensible people will notice/know that the software
development diverges after a certain stage. That combined with the
extremely unusual approach of using 99 as minor, should be more than a
clear sign.
Not to mention that there will be no release off the master branch -
thus there should be nothing to get confused about in the first place.

> It makes
> for a non-linear version number situation which IMO is rather
> confusing.
See the development diverges note above.

> With the current version numbering scheme that ~every
> project uses except X.org, it's very clear what the latest release is
> in a particular line. Also, 10.3.99 has no connection to 10.3 at all,
It (10.3.99) is based on the same code as 10.3. That seems like a clear
enough connection to me.

> it is in fact much closer to 10.4.
It *may* be closer.

> This is why it makes sense to call
> it 10.4-rc1 and not 10.3.x.
One can make sense to call it many things, yet that's a matter of
personal interpretation (same goes for me). It seems that despite no
clear benefit of keeping the old way, mesa is destined to say stranger
to the rest of X on this topic.

>   -ilia

More information about the mesa-dev mailing list