On Friday, November 14, 2014 02:39:24 PM Emil Velikov wrote: > Hello all, > > This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use > a more conventional numbering for the development/rc releases ? > > Eg. > mesa 10.4.0-rc1 -> 10.3.99.901 > mesa 10.4.0-rc2 -> 10.3.99.902 > ... > mesa 10.4.0 -> 10.4.0 > mesa 10.4.1-rc1 -> 10.4.0.901 > ... you get the idea. > > Afaics most freedesktop project use it plus a big hunk of gnome. > > Are there any objections if I move to the above format starting with > mesa 10.4-rc1 ? I would appreciate any feedback over the next 2-3 days, > and based on it I'll tag the first RC. > > The plan is to still keep the branch point later on today, but to push > the tag on Monday. > > Thanks > Emil
Using .99.9xx seems fine by me, but I don't have a strong preference either way. However, it would be great if we could be consistent about using '.0' on the first release in a new series. For example: ftp://ftp.freedesktop.org/pub/mesa/10.3/MesaLib-10.3.0.tar.gz the tarball is named 10.3.0 but the directory is called "10.3" (and only contains 10.3.0 and RCs - stable releases go in directories called 10.3.1, etc.) glxinfo uses 10.3.0: OpenGL core profile version string: 3.3 (Core Profile) Mesa 10.3.0 (git-1b12af3) but the tag is called mesa-10.3, not mesa-10.3.0. I believe that consistently using the ".0" would making life a little easier for packagers. --Ken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
