[Mesa-dev] Mesa 13.0.0 release plan (Was Re: Mesa 12.1.0 release plan (Was Re: Next Mesa release, anyone?))

[Marek Olšák]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Karol Herbst <karolherbst at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-09-30 16:57 GMT+02:00 Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org>:
>> On 09/30/2016 06:23 AM, Brian Paul wrote:
>>> On 09/30/2016 04:59 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>> On 30 September 2016 at 03:31, Timothy Arceri
>>>> <timothy.arceri at collabora.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 19:17 -0700, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 29, 2016 5:14 PM, "Timothy Arceri" <timothy.arceri at collabora.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 15:56 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28 September 2016 at 19:53, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's been almost 4 months since the 12.0 branch was created, and
>>>>>>>> soon
>>>>>>>> it will have been 3 months since Mesa 12.0 was released.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there any reason we haven't created the stable branch yet?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ideally, we would time the release so that it's 1-2 months before
>>>>>>>> fall
>>>>>>>> distribution releases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Marek !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In all honesty I was secretly hoping that we'll get Dave/Bas RADV for
>>>>>>> 12.1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the release should be 13?? Core Mesa and the Intel driver
>>>>>> have reached 4.4 this release also core Mesa is now at 4.5 despite not
>>>>>> being enabled anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> My personal preference, for whatever it's worth, would be to call it
>>>>> 12.1.
>>>>> The 12.0 release was the biggest release we've had in a long time and it
>>>>> seems odd to me to jump to 13.0 right away when we really haven't
>>>>> done much
>>>>> at all in terms of new features. (I think it's only 2 or 3 desktop
>>>>> features
>>>>> in the case of Intel.  A bit more on the ES side I guess).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My understanding is the major version has only ever been bumped when
>>>>> full
>>>>> support for a new desktop OpenGL version has been reached regardless
>>>>> of the
>>>>> number of extensions enabled. We did the same thing going from 8.0 > 9.0
>>>>> were as the 7 release went all the way to 7.11 over a 4 year period. It
>>>>> seems odd to change the way we bump versions at this point in time,
>>>>> although
>>>>> in future maybe it will need to be based on Vulkin versions also.
>>>>>
>>>> Brain freeze - seem to miss-remember that enhanced layouts (thus 4.4)
>>>> landed after the branch point.
>>>> That plus the ES3.1/ES3.2, compat for the desktop GL, (by Ilia/Ken)
>>>> does take us to 13.0.
>>>>
>>>> At the end of the day it's just a number albeit being the "unlucky" one.
>>>>
>>>> If we get a consensus amongst the majority of devs we can change the
>>>> versioning scheme. But for that let's do so in a ~weeks time - after
>>>> the branchpoint.
>>>
>>> I'd say to go to 13.0 if we're now supporting GL 4.4.  That'd follow the
>>> general pattern.
>>
>> I agree.  The only question is what we do after GL 4.5 bumps us to 14.0.
>>  There is a distinct possibility (spoiler alert) that there won't be any
>> new OpenGL version for a long time, if ever.  Will we be stuck at 14.x
>> forever? :)
>>
>
> why not a new release bump after implementing those "OpenGL 2015" extensions ;)

That might never happen either.

I prefer a versioning scheme that is not based on features.

Marek