Hello again, On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 02:10 PM, John Kehayias wrote:
> Hi everyone, > > With our move to a branching strategy for patches that require many > rebuilds, I would like to propose a branch for Mesa updates. Based on > how Mesa has been developed the last few years, there should be > frequent (roughly a couple of months or quicker) releases that > shouldn't be breaking anything or requiring lots of packaging work. > > Famous last words, I know, but at least in the last few years the only > big change I know of was the one we hit on the last core-updates cycle > with old hardware being dropped. The previous cycle had some build > changes, perhaps due to missing many intermediate version changes. > Both were rather self-contained and resolved quickly. > > So, I have submitted a patch for the latest stable release at > <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/64175> I'm aware of one other patch that > should also go here, <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/64044> are there any > others? > I've created a "mesa-updates" branch with these two commits (the one updating mesa has been updated to the latest version from last week). > I've tentatively labeled with "mesa-updates" as a proposed branch > name. With Mesa's release cycle I propose keeping this as a branch for > Mesa updates, and I suppose related required changes (say libdrm). If > everything goes smoothly, we can give the build farm some time to > build everything, check for any breakages, and then push to master > with substitutes available. Master can be merged into this branch just > prior to a patches going to this branch with the expectation merging > back to master will be soon after and changes are only affecting > packages that won't be touched on master anyway. I think this should > be relatively clean and straightforward, a good use of our new > branching/building strategy. > > Thoughts? Can someone set up a build job for this branch and/or let me > know how to do that? (I would also require access to Cuirass.) > I'll open a branch merge request issue later today as per new procedure for QA. Though I believe that only builds 2 branches, which is occupied at the moment. Or can someone set a separate build job specifically for mesa-updates, especially if we think it is a good idea to have this going forward? > Do we want a "Mesa team" or something a bit larger? Not sure what > exactly, since "graphics" is perhaps too broad. Happy to help > spearhead the Mesa front for Guix (the very package that got me first > involved in the patching process). > This is still a good question I think, of how we want to have a team(s) to handle things like xorg, wayland, mesa, and related packages. They are a bit all over the place in terms of scope and what they touch. For now I'd like to go ahead with a regular mesa-updates branch since that sees regular releases and is pretty self-contained currently. Thanks! John
