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

[Emil Velikov]

On 30 September 2016 at 15:57, Ian Romanick <idr at freedesktop.org> wrote:
> 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? :)
>
Question being: what's bad with using 13/14/666(jk) as version number ?

We could easily change things, if we get 'bored' with the same major.
Although let's think about this if/when it happens ?

Thanks
Emil