Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-21 Thread Ian Romanick
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-19 Thread Kenneth Graunke
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-19 Thread Tom Stellard
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-19 Thread Jakob Bornecrantz
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.

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-15 Thread Carl Worth
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-15 Thread Carl Worth
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-15 Thread Brian Paul
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-12 Thread Carl Worth
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-12 Thread Marek Olšák
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-10 Thread Ian Romanick
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-08 Thread Marek Olšák
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-08 Thread Kurt Roeckx
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-08 Thread Tom Stellard
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-05 Thread Brian Paul
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-04 Thread Daniel Vetter
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-03 Thread Kenneth Graunke
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-03 Thread Ian Romanick
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-03 Thread Carl Worth
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-03 Thread Carl Worth
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-02 Thread Dave Airlie
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-02 Thread Jakob Bornecrantz
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

Re: [Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-02 Thread Matt Turner
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

[Mesa-dev] [RFC] Mesa 9.2 and release process changes

2013-07-02 Thread Ian Romanick
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