[Mesa-dev] Mesa 10.3 release plan

[Roland Scheidegger]

Am 17.09.2014 02:13, schrieb Emil Velikov:
> On 12/09/14 10:10, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> On 11/09/14 23:21, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>> On 09/10/2014 05:45 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> The original plan from Ian was to have four release candidates prior to the
>>>> final release. From what I can see there has been no serious amount of patches
>>>> nominated for 10.3-rc4, so I'm planning to keep with the plan and release 10.3
>>>> this Friday.
>>>>
>>>> If you know of any serious issues that must land or any other reason why we
>>>> should delay 10.3 please let me know ASAP.
>>>
>>> I hope this is soon enough. :(
>>>
>>> Ken and I have a few bug fixes that we'd like to have land in the
>>> release.  I think they're all out on the list for review, but Ken might
>>> have one more.  Once they land on master, I'll send you a pull-request.
>>>
>>> Could we do one more RC tomorrow and the final release next week?  We
>>> probably don't need to wait until Friday, but I don't have a strong opinion.
>>>
>> Hi Ian,
>>
>> What a nice timing this is.
>>
>> Just found out that I'll have to be moving to another house bit earlier than
>> expected, and here comes a request to delay the release by a couple of days.
>>
>> Sounds like a plan to me :)
>>
> So after some "interesting" few days, I've went through the 10.3 queue.
> 
> We have 35 newly queued patches, and when running piglit 3457f015314 against
> mesa 10.2.7 shows
> 
> * swrast-classic
> 19 regressions
> 3 fixes
> 28 new tests, 28 pass
> 
> * swrast-gallium (llvmpipe)
> 2 regressions
> 37 fixes
> 97 new tests, 91 pass, 6 fail

I'm only seeing one regression vs. 10.2 branch, which is draw-pixels.
Pretty sure this is due to the different formula used for converting
signed/unsigned values in core mesa. I can live with that...
As for the new failures, there's 2 related to vertex_id in indirect draw
(this is because draw is following d3d10 convention, so zero-based
vertex id, someday that should be fixed by supporting both vertex id
conventions (plus base_vertex) in gallium just as mesa core already does).
There's another failure in set-location-to-sampler (fails to compile due
to exceeding MAX_UNIFORM_LOCATIONS) - I've no idea about that.
The remaining 4 failures are in ARB_fragment_layer_viewport - so only 2
of the 6 new tests actually pass. That's not so hot though it's the
special cases which fail so it's probably ok for now.
So all in all this looks acceptable to me.


Roland


> 
> I will give it a spin on my Sandybridge tomorrow, and barring any serious
> issues mesa 10.3 will be out this Friday alongside 10.2.8 :)
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Emil
> 
>>
>> -Emil
>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Emil
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mesa-dev mailing list
>>>> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=F4msKE2WxRzA%2BwN%2B25muztFm5TSPwE8HKJfWfR2NgfY%3D%0A&m=pWK3lunLUUQO%2B%2B0nrh4109gG3BrLscoA95VGSLkMyZQ%3D%0A&s=2f9122d63e499c64063db3a1c2ed0b1fd26710a2630479556a6090e6f29fb0c0
>>>
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev&k=oIvRg1%2BdGAgOoM1BIlLLqw%3D%3D%0A&r=F4msKE2WxRzA%2BwN%2B25muztFm5TSPwE8HKJfWfR2NgfY%3D%0A&m=pWK3lunLUUQO%2B%2B0nrh4109gG3BrLscoA95VGSLkMyZQ%3D%0A&s=2f9122d63e499c64063db3a1c2ed0b1fd26710a2630479556a6090e6f29fb0c0
>