On 14 November 2014 16:48, Ilia Mirkin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On 14/11/14 15:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov <[email protected]> >>> 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. >>> >>> Huh? What's wrong with the current thing? Can I put in an alternate >>> suggestion of getting the other projects to switch to the mesa (and >>> linux kernel and wine and many many many other projects) rc version >>> naming scheme? >>> >> To be perfectly honest, I don't think I can think of any (apart from the >> kernel and wine) that have a stable branch(es) and use rc. Can you >> kindly point me to some or if you have some ideas of a search phrase >> that would be appreciated. > > Hmmm... well, most projects don't *have* rc's, so it's definitely a > reduced set. But let's see... just thinking about various software I > use and plugging it into my favourite search engine: > Speaking of software that I use, KDE (with all of its glory) uses identical scheme as the proposed.
> emacs: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu-emacs/2014-10/msg00001.html So it seems that their 9x are the actual rc (relates to the proposal), while their RC is an actual wake up call - guys test this because I'm releasing in two days. Also the RC business seems to be a recent feature as only the last to releases have it. > openssl: https://www.openssl.org/source/ (does -beta1 instead of -rc1, > but same idea) That software has a special definition of {major,minor,patch} number :P Yet it justifies your point. > pidgin did beta tags for 2.0, but not for all releases: > https://hg.pidgin.im/pidgin/main/tags > Can not see any stable branch in there. I don't think there is any master branch either. They have default, which is presumably the same as master. > BTW, it's not like I'm leaving out ones that use some other scheme... > other ones I looked up just didn't have any such thing at all. > "When in Rome..." + mesa is considered part of X development = ? -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
