[Xcb] Thinking towards 7.6 katamari, including xcb

[Eric Anholt]

On Thu, 2009-10-22 at 22:48 +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 04:48:36PM +0900, Keith Packard wrote:
> > Excerpts from Daniel Stone's message of Thu Oct 22 12:09:24 +0900 2009:
> > > What? Why?
> > 
> > Doing more frequent releases will obviously reduce the lag between
> > implementation and deployment; this should do lots of good for
> > everyone involved.
> 
> That would quite obviously be good, but we can still be smart about
> how we time our six-month cycles.  I believe that timing it right
> would result in a very short lag for Fedora, Ubuntu, and SUSE; given
> that they're on six-month release cycles, a well-timed six-month
> release cycle would have the same lag (or less than) than a three-month
> cycle.
> 
> > I get constant requests for shorter X server
> > release intervals, enough so that I'm willing to do the work to make
> > it happen if that's OK with the X.org community.
> 
> Only if it doesn't stifle the server development.
> 
> > The Intel driver is on a quarterly release schedule at this point, and
> > we've been getting good feedback on this process from Linux OSVs and
> > other users of the driver. Obviously sticking to schedules is a key
> > part of any benefit to the OSVs here, and in my experience, shorter
> > schedules are easier to hit than longer ones. Yes, it's a lot of
> > release management, but as I said, I'm willing to make that happen.
> 
> Sure, but OSVs and device enables are a reasonably special case.  Having
> six-month cycles means that maintaining a stable branch is relatively
> easy, since within a one-year timeframe, we only really have two
> releases we care about, which surely shouldn't make most backporting
> that difficult.

In Mesa, we've been doing 3-month cycles, with developers pushing fixes
back to the previous 2 stable releases.  It's been working out pretty
well, other than the particular merging procedure (in my opinion).  I
haven't seen complaints about rushing forward on new development and
leaving people behind, and beyond about 2 cycles back (6 months) things
get different enough that I don't think you'll see developers support it
anyway.

server-1.5-branch has been awfully idle as of late.

-- 
Eric Anholt
eric at anholt.net                         eric.anholt at intel.com


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20091022/82ed1e95/attachment.pgp