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

[Ian Romanick]

On 11/14/2014 07:07 AM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, 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 -> 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.
> 
> Does this really make it a more conventional numbering scheme? I've
> personally seen the "10.4.1-rc1"-scheme way more often than the
> "10.4.0.901"-scheme. In fact, I think this is the first time I've seen
> the latter used. But I haven't exactly gone out of my way looking for
> versioning schemes.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Shouldn't it be the other way around? IMO we should have strong
> arguments for *changing* it, rather than keep going as-is... Any
> change can break something, so only changes that have clear benefits
> should be done, no?

I agree with this.  Packagers have already figured out how to deal with
Mesa's scheme.  Changing it will just create more work for them.  At the
very least, I'd like to get buy-in from a couple distro maintainers
before making such a change.

> AFAICT, the current scheme conveys more relevant, obvious information
> than the proposed one, namely that it's a release *candidate* for
> v10.4.1. If no blocking issues are found, it'll become the *actual*
> release...
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
>