On 07/19/2013 10:54 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:42:42AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
On 07/10/2013 04:38 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
[snip]
Could we just change our "Mark the patch with 'NOTE: ...'" policy with
"To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, ad
On 07/10/2013 04:38 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
[snip]
Could we just change our "Mark the patch with 'NOTE: ...'" policy with
"To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
Cc: mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org
in the sign-off area..." ?
This loses a bit of informat
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:42:42AM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 04:38 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> [snip]
> >Could we just change our "Mark the patch with 'NOTE: ...'" policy with
> >"To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
> > Cc: mesa-sta...@list
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 04:38 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Could we just change our "Mark the patch with 'NOTE: ...'" policy with
>> "To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
>> Cc:
>> mesa-stable@lists.
Carl Worth writes:
> Thanks. I'm happy to help here. So I'll plan to release 9.1.5 on July
> 15, (just 1.5 weeks away now).
Well, I was hoping to have my first release be on time, but I didn't
quite make it.
I have assembled a candidate branch for release, and I've pushed it to
the "9.1" branch
Brian Paul writes:
>> Meanwhile, what's the correct process for updating the website itself?
>
> I upload the files to the mesa directory via my SF account.
...
>> Do I have permission to do those steps? (I'm quite certain I don't'
>> even have a sourceforge account.)
>
> You'd need a SF account a
On 07/12/2013 06:19 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
Brian Paul writes:
Carl, it would be good if you could put all the above info in Mesa
docs/. The devinfo.html page mentions the "This is a candidate for the
stable branches" convention, etc. The docs/lists.html file describes
all the mailing lists. A
Brian Paul writes:
> Carl, it would be good if you could put all the above info in Mesa
> docs/. The devinfo.html page mentions the "This is a candidate for the
> stable branches" convention, etc. The docs/lists.html file describes
> all the mailing lists. And so on.
Great idea. Thanks for
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 07/08/2013 03:12 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
>>>
>>> 3. I'd like to make some adjustments to our process for picking patches
>>> back
>>> to the stable branch. The current process is o
On 07/08/2013 03:12 PM, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
3. I'd like to make some adjustments to our process for picking patches back
to the stable branch. The current process is okay, but it has some kinks.
The two big (related) problems are people eithe
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> 3. I'd like to make some adjustments to our process for picking patches back
> to the stable branch. The current process is okay, but it has some kinks.
> The two big (related) problems are people either under-mark things for the
> stable bra
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:37:54PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> > 2. Instead of just posting md5sum for the release tarballs, I think we
> > should start GPG signing them. I'm not sure what sort of process we want to
> > establish for this. Sh
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 01:02:06PM -0700, Ian Romanick wrote:
> To keep our six-month release cadence, it looks like we'll target
> August 22nd for 9.2. That means we'll probably need to make the
> release branch on July 18th... that's just over two weeks from now.
>
> Assuming that works for eve
On 07/03/2013 07:01 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
Ian Romanick writes:
1. Carl Worth is taking over stable releases from me, so I'd like to
increase the rate of stable releases from (nominally) monthly to every
two weeks.
Thanks. I'm happy to help here. So I'll plan to release 9.1.5 on July
15, (just
On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 10:02:07PM -0700, Kenneth Graunke wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 06:01 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
> [snip]
> >I can guess a few items:
> >
> >* Patches must be bug fixes only, not feature work.
>
> Essentially, no new GL features - but hardware enabling is okay.
> For example, backporti
On 07/03/2013 06:01 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
[snip]
I can guess a few items:
* Patches must be bug fixes only, not feature work.
Essentially, no new GL features - but hardware enabling is okay. For
example, backporting basic Bay Trail support would be OK.
Performance patches are also generall
On 07/03/2013 06:01 PM, Carl Worth wrote:
Ian Romanick writes:
1. Carl Worth is taking over stable releases from me, so I'd like to
increase the rate of stable releases from (nominally) monthly to every
two weeks.
Thanks. I'm happy to help here. So I'll plan to release 9.1.5 on July
15, (just
Ian Romanick writes:
> 1. Carl Worth is taking over stable releases from me, so I'd like to
> increase the rate of stable releases from (nominally) monthly to every
> two weeks.
Thanks. I'm happy to help here. So I'll plan to release 9.1.5 on July
15, (just 1.5 weeks away now).
> Instead of th
Dave Airlie writes:
> There should be a reason for doing 2, btw just stating I'd like to do
> this doesn't give us any advantages over what we have now. Whats the
> point, stopping hackers? etc.
If md5sums are to be used to verify that the release tar files have not
been modified, then users need
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> 2. Instead of just posting md5sum for the release tarballs, I think we
>> should start GPG signing them. I'm not sure what sort of process we want to
>> establish for this. Should they ju
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> > 2. Instead of just posting md5sum for the release tarballs, I think we
> > should start GPG signing them. I'm not sure what sort of process we
> want to
> > establish for this. Should
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> 2. Instead of just posting md5sum for the release tarballs, I think we
> should start GPG signing them. I'm not sure what sort of process we want to
> establish for this. Should they just be signed by the release managers key?
> Is this easie
To keep our six-month release cadence, it looks like we'll target August
22nd for 9.2. That means we'll probably need to make the release branch
on July 18th... that's just over two weeks from now.
Assuming that works for everyone, I'd like to propose a couple changes
to our post-9.2 release
23 matches
Mail list logo