[Mesa-dev] libdrm versioning - switch to 19.0.0?

[Marek Olšák]

I see.

It will be 2.year.n then unless there are objections.

Marek

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:47 PM Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:

> Quoting Eric Engestrom (2019-10-11 06:10:58)
> > On Thursday, 2019-10-10 16:14:47 -0400, Marek Olšák wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I expect to make a new libdrm release soon. Any objections to changing
> the
> > > versioning scheme?
> > >
> > > Current: 2.4.n
> > > n = starts from 0, incremented per release
> > >
> > > New proposals:
> > > year.n.0 (19.0.0)
> > > year.month.n (19.10.0)
> > > year.month.day (19.10.10)
> >
> > Sounds good, but I really suggest the Mesa scheme of counting release
> > and not a purely date-based system (we'd had bursts of releases in the
> > past, sometimes more than one in the same day).
> >
> > One suggestion might be to bump the minor version instead of the major?
> > To be more precise: 2.year.n, where year is 19 so 2.19.x > 2.4.x
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I prefer this to <year>.<any>
>
> To echo Dave's concern, if we ever decided to have a non-backwards
> compatible
> API change (say Intel decided that since we don't use libdrm_intel anymore
> we
> don't want to maintain it and want to drop it) we'd need to be able to
> bump the
> major version to signal that to downstreams.
>
> Mesa doesn't have this problem because were' implementing Khronos APIs: the
> mesa version and the libs don't match anyway.
>
> Dylan
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20191011/d8da3ede/attachment.html>