Re: Amber branch plan
At the moment 21.3.8 is the last planned Mesa 21.3.Z. So I kind of imagine 21.3.9 being the first "amber-only" release where we flip the meson option for amber to true by default, and we'd keep that branch going for as long as people want to keep it compiling and fixing bugs in it. - ajax On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 6:35 AM Timo Aaltonen wrote: > > Dylan Baker kirjoitti 7.12.2021 klo 1.51: > > Since classic is gone, I thought I'd lay out my thinking for Amber. > > > > I'm assuming that we'll branch Amber from the 21.3 branch, after that > > reaches normal EOL. That gives us the benefit of developing on top of a > > known good state for classic drivers, and should minimize friction for > > distros dealing with classic. If anyone wants to backport changes from > > main to amber they can obviously do so. > > > > Are there any objections to that plan? > > > > Dylan > > Is there going to be a separate tarball release of Amber? > > > -- > t >
Re: Amber branch plan
Dylan Baker kirjoitti 7.12.2021 klo 1.51: Since classic is gone, I thought I'd lay out my thinking for Amber. I'm assuming that we'll branch Amber from the 21.3 branch, after that reaches normal EOL. That gives us the benefit of developing on top of a known good state for classic drivers, and should minimize friction for distros dealing with classic. If anyone wants to backport changes from main to amber they can obviously do so. Are there any objections to that plan? Dylan Is there going to be a separate tarball release of Amber? -- t
Re: Amber branch plan
This is my plan as well. I'm aiming to get amber packaged for Fedora before February so I'll want to see !10557 merged pretty soon. - ajax On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 7:36 PM Jason Ekstrand wrote: > > +1 > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:51 PM Dylan Baker wrote: >> >> Since classic is gone, I thought I'd lay out my thinking for Amber. >> >> I'm assuming that we'll branch Amber from the 21.3 branch, after that >> reaches normal EOL. That gives us the benefit of developing on top of a >> known good state for classic drivers, and should minimize friction for >> distros dealing with classic. If anyone wants to backport changes from >> main to amber they can obviously do so. >> >> Are there any objections to that plan? >> >> Dylan
Re: Amber branch plan
+1 On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:51 PM Dylan Baker wrote: > Since classic is gone, I thought I'd lay out my thinking for Amber. > > I'm assuming that we'll branch Amber from the 21.3 branch, after that > reaches normal EOL. That gives us the benefit of developing on top of a > known good state for classic drivers, and should minimize friction for > distros dealing with classic. If anyone wants to backport changes from > main to amber they can obviously do so. > > Are there any objections to that plan? > > Dylan
Amber branch plan
Since classic is gone, I thought I'd lay out my thinking for Amber. I'm assuming that we'll branch Amber from the 21.3 branch, after that reaches normal EOL. That gives us the benefit of developing on top of a known good state for classic drivers, and should minimize friction for distros dealing with classic. If anyone wants to backport changes from main to amber they can obviously do so. Are there any objections to that plan? Dylan signature.asc Description: signature
