On Apr 6, 2010, at 11:47, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:30:47AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:Beyond that, one requirement that I see for merging output drivers would be to shorten the X server release from the current 6 months down to 3 months or so. Otherwise I feel that the window of time between hardwarerelease and driver release could become too long. I'm up for this cadence, but it would mean that we'd need to see major patches postedand reviewed in the previous release cycle so that they could be appliedshortly after a release. I don't want to shorten the RC schedule bymuch. If ABI/API churn is an issue, we could try freezing those for the'odd' releases, but I'd rather avoid that as it can artificially constrain development.Er, is there no reason hardware enable (even if it's not entirely fully-featured) can't be done in point releases?
Yeah, I thought the 6-week point release schedule was mainly to address this very concern amongst the drivers developers.
I think a 3-month major-release cycle will be very taxing, especially considering the increased codebase with drivers.
Another possibility to take some load off of the release manager might be allowing "assistant release manager" (or possibly "assistant to the release manager" ;>) positions for the drivers. That way, Keith doesn't need to be the gate-keeper for an increasing code-base, and the driver developers still have the same manager for their driver in its new location as they did in its old location.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
