[Xorg] Code freeze extension

Eric Anholt eta at lclark.edu
Fri Aug 13 15:45:38 PDT 2004

On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 11:23, Brian Paul wrote:
> Kevin E Martin wrote:
> > On today's release wranglers call, we decided to move the code freeze
> > deadline until 11AM EDT, Monday 16 Aug 2004.  This will allow several of
> > us to finish fixing the remaining bugs.
> > 
> > After the code freeze, the first release candidate tag will be made for
> > people to test against.  The volunteers who signed up to build release
> > packages should plan to make new packages available after tree is
> > tagged.
> > 
> > We also decided that, after Monday's code freeze, nothing is to be
> > checked into the tree without the approval of the release manager (me).
> > All release blocker bug fixes that you want to have considered for this
> > release will need to be entered into bugzilla (with associated patch).
> I've been kind of out of touch with DRI / X development lately, but it 
> looks like the current Mesa CVS trunk and the DRI tree's DRM modules 
> will be going into this release.  Is that correct?
> The Mesa CVS trunk doesn't constitute a normal Mesa release yet.  I 
> was planning on eventually wrapping up the trunk as the 6.1 
> (development) release.  The last Mesa stable release was 6.0.1 and bug 
> fixes relative to it are on the mesa_6_0_branch branch in CVS.  I 
> don't think any of the DRI driver developers have been putting 
> anything into that branch though.
> That said, I _think_ the Mesa CVS trunk is fairly stable code at this 
> point.  Perhaps I should make the 6.1 release ASAP, just so things are 
> somewhat synchronized.  Comments?

At this point, given that the X.Org tree is still monolithic, our Mesa
usage is somewhat independent of Mesa releases in my view.  I chose to
integrate the development branch because of the great advances made in
the DRI drivers in general (though we have some issues to resolve still,
as bugzilla shows), though I was concerned about using something that
wasn't blessed as a release.

I would like to continue using the current codebase, though we should
probably make it clear in glxinfo (for example) that this is a
development branch we're using.  That is, unless a release were to
happen from the head branch the next couple of days.

Eric Anholt                                eta at lclark.edu          
http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/         anholt at FreeBSD.org

More information about the xorg mailing list