On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > On 16 May 2016 at 01:32, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Martin Peres <martin.pe...@free.fr> wrote: >>> On 16/05/16 02:55, Jason Ekstrand wrote: >>>> On May 15, 2016 2:01 PM, "Martin Peres" <martin.pe...@free.fr >>>> <mailto:martin.pe...@free.fr>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On 15/05/16 23:54, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com >>>> >> <mailto:airl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So I said this on irc over the weekend and it seemed like we had some >>>> >>> consensus on holding off 12.0 until we could announce 4.5 on some >>>> >>> hardware. This assumes the FP64 stuff is going in at least. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So I decided to roll out the proposal here, which is that we finish >>>> >>> GL4.5 features off for at least Skylake I think. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> So what is needed/missing: please add as you see fit. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> a) robustness - radeonsi has some bits of this. We need to get >>>> >>> KHR_robustness bits, that I think Kayden has patches started for, and >>>> >>> i965 needs to ensure it uses robust buffer stuff. I don't think this >>>> >>> one in unobtainable. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> b) cull_distance - I merged something, it broke, I'll fix it today, >>>> >>> job done. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> c) enhanced_layouts - So tarceri has posted patches, we know that to >>>> >>> do it properly we probably need to rip up attribute packing and >>>> >>> rewrite it, however if Kayden thinks what tarceri has done is >>>> >>> functional enough for now, we could merge the final pieces and work on >>>> >>> perfection later. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> d) SIMD32 for i965 compute shaders - this is probably the most unknown >>>> >>> to me, curro says he's got some patches, that need to rebase onto FP64 >>>> >>> when it lands, assuming he can do that, and reviewers can get on top >>>> >>> of things, and we possibly only enable SIMD32 in the corner cases >>>> >>> initially, it might be possible to get this landed. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Have I missed anything? Should we go for it? >>>> >> >>>> >> The bugs that get triggered when you expose GL 4.3+ to UE4 games. Some >>>> >> are ours, some are theirs. Someone needs to sign up for this work. >>>> >> >>>> >> Also, I'd like to mention that ES 3.2 is pretty close as well. But >>>> >> probably not close enough to squeeze in here. Ian has started working >>>> >> on the OES_shader_io_blocks bits of it (which IMO shouldn't be too bad >>>> >> for someone who knows what all GLSL allows and what it doesn't), which >>>> >> was the last remaining big chunk. I have preliminary patches for core >>>> >> support of advanced blending, the rest should all be easy. >>>> >> >>>> >>> For radeonsi, I think the only other missing bit is qbo and >>>> >>> clear_texture, which may or may not make it in time. >>>> >> >>>> >> I'm in favor of this plan. Nouveau should be ready for Fermi and >>>> >> Kepler once Samuel's images patches for Fermi land (mostly reviewed, >>>> >> had a couple of nits). Maxwell will be missing tess and images, and >>>> >> it's unlikely that either of those will get done in a reasonable >>>> >> period of time. I think we can just flip robustness on... probably not >>>> >> meeting all the provisions of that spec, but ... meh. >>>> >> >>>> >> That said, we should put a cap on this timewise - if e.g. it becomes >>>> >> clear that SIMD32 will take a long time (I think the biggest potential >>>> >> issue of the batch), we should just cut a release. Maybe a 1 month >>>> >> cap? >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Yeah, a cap of 1 month delay compared to the initial plan or 1 >>>> > week after the driver reaching 4.5 in master, whatever happens >>>> > first. >>>> >>>> I agree with a time limit if we're going to do this. Another suggestion >>>> that had been made is to go ahead with the release and then plan to release >>>> mesa 13 as soon as we get 4.5. I'm personally OK with either. >>>> --Jason >>>> >>> Let's see if it would prevent some superstitious people from updating :p >>> >>> In any case, I agree with Jason. Mesa is released often-enough and things >>> will get a little buggy as games suddenly start exercising mesa is funny >>> ways. So, let's not rush it out if it cannot reach the quality needed and >>> just release another major version when it is ready. >> >> Of course the way to discover that games/applications suddenly start >> exercising mesa in funny ways is to do a release... a bit of a catch >> 22, wouldn't you say? I don't think developers and the users of >> mesa-git are really going to be enough to get all the kinks out. And >> the RC period should be sufficient time to fix any major issues that >> pop up. >> > > Let's see if I can summarise: > - People want to have a release with GL 4.5 capable driver(s) > - Mesa releasing is on a time based model, not a feature one.
This isn't set in stone. It's something we all decided on a while back. It's worked well and continues to work well, but we can all decide to make an exception or change it, if we get community consensus. > - Saying "we must get these X things, no release until then, period" > (GL 4.5 or bust) is just plain silly This is not "summarising", this is your opinion. I like time based release schedules as much as the next guy/girl, but there are case or circumstances where exceptions make sense. > - If we amend ^^ to honour some timeline, than we may not reach the > stated goad even with the imposed delay. > - Parties interested in the original timeline, may miss, are too shy, > etc. to say anything against this last minute change. > > How about we do the following: > - Keep the plan as originally > - As people are happy that we have 1-2 drivers covering GL version X, > branch off/feature freeze and release a few weeks later. > - Last but not least - let's try and bring up such discussions > earlier, please ? > If people have missed the earlier emails let me know we can improve on > that. Don't just ignore them and shout at the last minute, please ? I think we have to priorities here: making the 12.0 release and getting 4.5 out as soon as possible. They don't actually conflict, we just have to agree on the mechanism we use: 1) push out 12.0 a bit (we'll need a deadline), 2) keep the 12.0 schedule but re-merge master and push out the release if we get to 4.5 before the release or 3) cut a release (12.1 or 13.0, whatever) as soon as we get to 4.5. Kristian > Thank you > Emil > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
