On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Jordan Justen <jljus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Emil, I would say that piglit is mainly driven by the needs of Mesa, > so it is useful to relate piglit "releases" to Mesa when possible. > > Ian, all, > > What about this compromise/monstrosity? > 0.0.0-git20140911-1234abc-mesa-37.5.1 > > I think this will not work in the long run. It is too difficult to handle. appending a date may be nice, but it's not required. > I also think this could work, as I'm not sure we need the date & sha1 > in the tag: > 0.0.0-tested-mesa-37.5.1 > > Finally, how about a tag of 0.0.0, with the "release" notes as the tag > comment documenting the Mesa release intended to be tested by the tag? > > -Jordan > I think that all that is required is to sync up to branches *and* tags that mesh well with mesa releases. This means that we have a branch for each mesa major version, and then these branches will only accept bug fixes and framework fixes. This should help with reducing the load a little bit, and provide a more stable environment. Also, I would like to suggest that the piglit version just being the same as the mesa versions. This should make things fairly easy. This means that we need a 10.2, a 10.3 branch and tags in each branch stating which release. This means that two versions will probably be tagged at the same commit and that would be for version 10.2.9 ( if that is being released ) and 10.3.0-rc4. Also, I would highly suggest we make the branch/tag for the 10.3 line right away that way all developers can work on the same page so to speak.
_______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list Piglit@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit