On 16 May 2016 at 18:54, Kristian Høgsberg <k...@bitplanet.net> wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 1:43 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> On 16 May 2016 at 01:32, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Martin Peres <martin.pe...@free.fr> wrote: >>>> On 16/05/16 02:55, Jason Ekstrand wrote: >>>>> On May 15, 2016 2:01 PM, "Martin Peres" <martin.pe...@free.fr >>>>> <mailto:martin.pe...@free.fr>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > On 15/05/16 23:54, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com >>>>> >> <mailto:airl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> So I said this on irc over the weekend and it seemed like we had some >>>>> >>> consensus on holding off 12.0 until we could announce 4.5 on some >>>>> >>> hardware. This assumes the FP64 stuff is going in at least. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> So I decided to roll out the proposal here, which is that we finish >>>>> >>> GL4.5 features off for at least Skylake I think. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> So what is needed/missing: please add as you see fit. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> a) robustness - radeonsi has some bits of this. We need to get >>>>> >>> KHR_robustness bits, that I think Kayden has patches started for, and >>>>> >>> i965 needs to ensure it uses robust buffer stuff. I don't think this >>>>> >>> one in unobtainable. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> b) cull_distance - I merged something, it broke, I'll fix it today, >>>>> >>> job done. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> c) enhanced_layouts - So tarceri has posted patches, we know that to >>>>> >>> do it properly we probably need to rip up attribute packing and >>>>> >>> rewrite it, however if Kayden thinks what tarceri has done is >>>>> >>> functional enough for now, we could merge the final pieces and work on >>>>> >>> perfection later. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> d) SIMD32 for i965 compute shaders - this is probably the most unknown >>>>> >>> to me, curro says he's got some patches, that need to rebase onto FP64 >>>>> >>> when it lands, assuming he can do that, and reviewers can get on top >>>>> >>> of things, and we possibly only enable SIMD32 in the corner cases >>>>> >>> initially, it might be possible to get this landed. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Have I missed anything? Should we go for it? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The bugs that get triggered when you expose GL 4.3+ to UE4 games. Some >>>>> >> are ours, some are theirs. Someone needs to sign up for this work. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Also, I'd like to mention that ES 3.2 is pretty close as well. But >>>>> >> probably not close enough to squeeze in here. Ian has started working >>>>> >> on the OES_shader_io_blocks bits of it (which IMO shouldn't be too bad >>>>> >> for someone who knows what all GLSL allows and what it doesn't), which >>>>> >> was the last remaining big chunk. I have preliminary patches for core >>>>> >> support of advanced blending, the rest should all be easy. >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> For radeonsi, I think the only other missing bit is qbo and >>>>> >>> clear_texture, which may or may not make it in time. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I'm in favor of this plan. Nouveau should be ready for Fermi and >>>>> >> Kepler once Samuel's images patches for Fermi land (mostly reviewed, >>>>> >> had a couple of nits). Maxwell will be missing tess and images, and >>>>> >> it's unlikely that either of those will get done in a reasonable >>>>> >> period of time. I think we can just flip robustness on... probably not >>>>> >> meeting all the provisions of that spec, but ... meh. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> That said, we should put a cap on this timewise - if e.g. it becomes >>>>> >> clear that SIMD32 will take a long time (I think the biggest potential >>>>> >> issue of the batch), we should just cut a release. Maybe a 1 month >>>>> >> cap? >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Yeah, a cap of 1 month delay compared to the initial plan or 1 >>>>> > week after the driver reaching 4.5 in master, whatever happens >>>>> > first. >>>>> >>>>> I agree with a time limit if we're going to do this. Another suggestion >>>>> that had been made is to go ahead with the release and then plan to >>>>> release >>>>> mesa 13 as soon as we get 4.5. I'm personally OK with either. >>>>> --Jason >>>>> >>>> Let's see if it would prevent some superstitious people from updating :p >>>> >>>> In any case, I agree with Jason. Mesa is released often-enough and things >>>> will get a little buggy as games suddenly start exercising mesa is funny >>>> ways. So, let's not rush it out if it cannot reach the quality needed and >>>> just release another major version when it is ready. >>> >>> Of course the way to discover that games/applications suddenly start >>> exercising mesa in funny ways is to do a release... a bit of a catch >>> 22, wouldn't you say? I don't think developers and the users of >>> mesa-git are really going to be enough to get all the kinks out. And >>> the RC period should be sufficient time to fix any major issues that >>> pop up. >>> >> >> Let's see if I can summarise: >> - People want to have a release with GL 4.5 capable driver(s) >> - Mesa releasing is on a time based model, not a feature one. > > This isn't set in stone. It's something we all decided on a while > back. It's worked well and continues to work well, but we can all > decide to make an exception or change it, if we get community > consensus. > Indeed that is correct.
>> - Saying "we must get these X things, no release until then, period" >> (GL 4.5 or bust) is just plain silly > > This is not "summarising", this is your opinion. I like time based > release schedules as much as the next guy/girl, but there are case or > circumstances where exceptions make sense. > No objections. The question being is why don't we hear about these earlier ? In all honestly I'm eagerly expecting any input when I sent out release schedule emails and rarely hear any input. >> - If we amend ^^ to honour some timeline, than we may not reach the >> stated goad even with the imposed delay. >> - Parties interested in the original timeline, may miss, are too shy, >> etc. to say anything against this last minute change. >> >> How about we do the following: >> - Keep the plan as originally >> - As people are happy that we have 1-2 drivers covering GL version X, >> branch off/feature freeze and release a few weeks later. >> - Last but not least - let's try and bring up such discussions >> earlier, please ? >> If people have missed the earlier emails let me know we can improve on >> that. Don't just ignore them and shout at the last minute, please ? > > I think we have to priorities here: making the 12.0 release and > getting 4.5 out as soon as possible. They don't actually conflict, we > just have to agree on the mechanism we use: 1) push out 12.0 a bit > (we'll need a deadline), 2) keep the 12.0 schedule but re-merge master > and push out the release if we get to 4.5 before the release or 3) cut > a release (12.1 or 13.0, whatever) as soon as we get to 4.5. > I believe I suggested the third option already ;-) Why I opted for it as opposed to the other two ? Because one month is roughly a third of the schedule, which by any metrics is a very significant delay. The way I see it, at least some people think that 'my' (it was Jason's actually) idea is not that bad. I'm obviously biased, but who isn't ? Thanks Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
