[Mesa-dev] Proposal of date-based Mesa versioning for 2017

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Oct 3, 2016 12:19 AM, "Albert Freeman" <albertwdfreeman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> year.month or year.dayoutofdaysthatyear

Why are we adding more options to an already confused discussion?

> dayoutoofdaysthatyear skips lots of integers quickly: reducing
> confusion of where is release x.(y - something) and better handles
> quick fix releases
> but makes it harder to determine how far into the year the release is
> although with some effort can be converted into an exact date

Quick fix releases are already handled by the stable release system which I
don't think anyone is recommending we get rid of.  Also, I haven't heard
anyone complain that year.quarter (really, year.releaseofyear) isn't
shipping enough integers.  I don't see what problem your suggestion is
solving.

> On 2 October 2016 at 14:22, Tobias Klausmann
> <tobias.johannes.klausmann at mni.thm.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 02.10.2016 13:56, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01.10.2016 22:22, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 01.10.2016 21:46, Marek Olšák wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I propose that we use versioning in the form of "year.quarter".
> >>>>
> >>>> 2017 would start with 17.0, then 17.1, 17.2, 17.3 for following
> >>>> quarters of the year, respectively.
> >>>> 2018 would start with 18.0, then 18.1, 18.2, 18.3.
> >>>>
> >>>> The motivation is that you can easily tell when a specific Mesa
> >>>> version was released with an accuracy of 3 months.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's the only scheme that seems practical to me. Everything else
> >>>> seems arbitrary or random.
> >>>>
> >>>> Opinions?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why not just use year.month instead, would be more accurate...and
> >>> releases happen semi random anyway and not after a given time.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's fine for something like Ubuntu where they really stick to their
two
> >> releases per year, in the same months each year. I'm not so sure that
that's
> >> a realistic goal for Mesa, and if releases *aren't* consistently
happening
> >> in the same months, you end up introducing a lot of confusion about
which
> >> version numbers exist and which don't.
> >
> >
> > This is true, but also holds true for year.quarter, if we miss one
quarterly
> > release (18.1, 18.2, 18.4, whoops where is 18.3).
> >
> >>
> >> Time-based with YY.0 for the first release of the year, and then YY.1,
> >> YY.2, etc. works fine.
> >
> >
> > Thats allright and would help in not confuse people so much, but with
it you
> > miss the "when was it released again?" thing Marek tried to introduce.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Tobias
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Nicolai
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mesa-dev mailing list
> > mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20161003/15f9e1d2/attachment.html>