I've always found the X.Org versioning scheme unintuitive. This is actually for the first time after ~5 years of contributing to open source graphics that I finally understand how the X versioning works. Granted, I had never been interested in it anyway.
If you need to have a web page on x.org that explains it, that alone is an indication that it's too complicated. Marek On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> 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 > _______________________________________________ > mesa-dev mailing list > mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
