Re: [Pixman] Plan to release final development version before stable branch

[Oded Gabbay]

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Oded Gabbay  wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm planning to release a new pixman development version (0.33.6) on
> 12/16. Immediately after that, I'm going to create a new stable branch
> - 0.34.
>
> Once that happen, only fixes will be accepted to that branch until the
> stable release sometime in late January. Regular development will
> continue in master.
>
> If you have some pending patches please shout.
>
> Thanks,
>
>  Oded

So it got delayed by 1 week, but I just released the 0.33.6 version.
I created a new branch - 0.34 - and only bug fixes should be put into
that branch from now on.

Regular development can continue to be done on master, as usual.

As a reminder, I'm planning to do the 0.34.0 release sometime near the
end of January.

Thanks,

   Oded
___
Pixman mailing list
Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman

Re: [Pixman] Plan to release final development version before stable branch

[Oded Gabbay]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Bill Spitzak  wrote:
> I suspect I will need to check the X server version, actually. That seems to
> be what the other tests are doing.
>
> My main concern is to figure out *which* version this (will) happen in. I am
> hoping this can be known before code release so Cairo can be updated to use
> it at the same time.
>
Don't worry, you will full visibility into which version this code
will get into.
If I had to guess right now, I would say 0.35.2, which is the stable
release of the next development tree. Estimated time is March-April
2016

Oded

> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Oded Gabbay  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Bill Spitzak  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Oded Gabbay 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Bill Spitzak 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Oded Gabbay 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Bill Spitzak 
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Oded Gabbay
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Bill Spitzak
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Can you include my patches to fix the filtering? They have been
>> >> >> >> > posted
>> >> >> >> > for a
>> >> >> >> > long time now.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The last patch makes GOOD/BEST use filtering for scaling images
>> >> >> >> > down.
>> >> >> >> > This
>> >> >> >> > matches the current Cairo behavior and would allow Cairo to use
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > pixman
>> >> >> >> > backend rather than doing an image fallback for any image
>> >> >> >> > scaling
>> >> >> >> > smaller
>> >> >> >> > than .75. It also contains a bunch of minor optimizaion and
>> >> >> >> > filter
>> >> >> >> > selection
>> >> >> >> > tweaks that makes the output somewhat better than current
>> >> >> >> > Cairo.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Hi Bill,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Unfortunately, I don't see anyone reviewed your patches, and from
>> >> >> >> what
>> >> >> >> I heard, those are quite significant changes.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's a shame you didn't bring this up when I did the first
>> >> >> >> development
>> >> >> >> release 4 months ago. Then we had enough time to check and test
>> >> >> >> it.
>> >> >> >> I'm quite hesitant of including such changes right before the
>> >> >> >> final
>> >> >> >> development version, even with a review.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I did send email on May 22, 2015, in response to your comments.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's strange, because I only started working on pixman during June
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> 2015...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You are right. That was just a general email I sent trying to get
>> >> > somebody
>> >> > to look at the patches. Searching in the history I found 3 of these.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I suggest that you try to contact one of pixman's veterans
>> >> >> >> (Soren,
>> >> >> >> Siarhei, Matt, Pekka, Ben) offline and ask them nicely to at
>> >> >> >> least
>> >> >> >> skim over the patches and give a high-level opinion about the
>> >> >> >> series.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > These were discussed with Soren before. He disagreed with my
>> >> >> > previous
>> >> >> > version because I changed to a single filter calculation rather
>> >> >> > than
>> >> >> > his
>> >> >> > pair of filters being convoluted. This version preserves the pair
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > filters, with some fixes of bugs that caused artifacts in the
>> >> >> > resulting
>> >> >> > filters. I'm sending email directly in case they are not reading
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > pixman
>> >> >> > list.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could you send me those emails ?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I forwarded the big one from him and my response. The patches I have
>> >> > had
>> >> > since then I believe address his concerns and preserve the 2-filter
>> >> > convolution api, they are just bug fixes and some efficiency changes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Also, check if you need to rebase the patches against current
>> >> >> >> pixman
>> >> >> >> and if so, maybe send the series again. It might stir up a
>> >> >> >> discussion.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The patches applied to the newest version without any conflicts
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > my
>> >> >> > test
>> >> >> > programs still work. I have resent them to the pixman mailing
>> >> >> > list.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Great!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm willing to review them in terms of correctness and code
>> >> >> >> style,
>> >> >> >> but
>> >> >> >> I'm not veteran enough in pixman to give an opinion on the
>> >> >> >> underlying
>> >> >> >> changes (which is the most important issue).
>> 

Re: [Pixman] Plan to release final development version before stable branch

[Bill Spitzak]

I suspect I will need to check the X server version, actually. That seems
to be what the other tests are doing.

My main concern is to figure out *which* version this (will) happen in. I
am hoping this can be known before code release so Cairo can be updated to
use it at the same time.

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Oded Gabbay  wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Bill Spitzak  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Oded Gabbay 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Bill Spitzak 
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Oded Gabbay 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Bill Spitzak 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Oded Gabbay <
> oded.gab...@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Bill Spitzak  >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Can you include my patches to fix the filtering? They have been
> >> >> >> > posted
> >> >> >> > for a
> >> >> >> > long time now.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The last patch makes GOOD/BEST use filtering for scaling images
> >> >> >> > down.
> >> >> >> > This
> >> >> >> > matches the current Cairo behavior and would allow Cairo to use
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > pixman
> >> >> >> > backend rather than doing an image fallback for any image
> scaling
> >> >> >> > smaller
> >> >> >> > than .75. It also contains a bunch of minor optimizaion and
> filter
> >> >> >> > selection
> >> >> >> > tweaks that makes the output somewhat better than current Cairo.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Hi Bill,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Unfortunately, I don't see anyone reviewed your patches, and from
> >> >> >> what
> >> >> >> I heard, those are quite significant changes.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's a shame you didn't bring this up when I did the first
> >> >> >> development
> >> >> >> release 4 months ago. Then we had enough time to check and test
> it.
> >> >> >> I'm quite hesitant of including such changes right before the
> final
> >> >> >> development version, even with a review.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I did send email on May 22, 2015, in response to your comments.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's strange, because I only started working on pixman during June
> of
> >> >> 2015...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You are right. That was just a general email I sent trying to get
> >> > somebody
> >> > to look at the patches. Searching in the history I found 3 of these.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I suggest that you try to contact one of pixman's veterans (Soren,
> >> >> >> Siarhei, Matt, Pekka, Ben) offline and ask them nicely to at least
> >> >> >> skim over the patches and give a high-level opinion about the
> >> >> >> series.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > These were discussed with Soren before. He disagreed with my
> previous
> >> >> > version because I changed to a single filter calculation rather
> than
> >> >> > his
> >> >> > pair of filters being convoluted. This version preserves the pair
> of
> >> >> > filters, with some fixes of bugs that caused artifacts in the
> >> >> > resulting
> >> >> > filters. I'm sending email directly in case they are not reading
> the
> >> >> > pixman
> >> >> > list.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you send me those emails ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I forwarded the big one from him and my response. The patches I have
> had
> >> > since then I believe address his concerns and preserve the 2-filter
> >> > convolution api, they are just bug fixes and some efficiency changes.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Also, check if you need to rebase the patches against current
> pixman
> >> >> >> and if so, maybe send the series again. It might stir up a
> >> >> >> discussion.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The patches applied to the newest version without any conflicts and
> >> >> > my
> >> >> > test
> >> >> > programs still work. I have resent them to the pixman mailing list.
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Great!
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm willing to review them in terms of correctness and code style,
> >> >> >> but
> >> >> >> I'm not veteran enough in pixman to give an opinion on the
> >> >> >> underlying
> >> >> >> changes (which is the most important issue).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Anything would be great.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I believe these work well and have been using them for a while.
> This
> >> >> > would
> >> >> > allow the removal of redundant code in Cairo, and would allow
> 2-pass
> >> >> > filtering to be done at some point in the future, which would
> really
> >> >> > improve
> >> >> > pixman performance.
> >> >> >
> >> >> ok, I'll try to take a look next week or so.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oded
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hi Bill,
> >>
> >> I read most of the emails you sent me and I cleared time tomorrow to
> >> review your patches.
> >>
> >> Having said that, IMHO, I 

Re: [Pixman] Plan to release final development version before stable branch

[Oded Gabbay]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Bill Spitzak  wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Oded Gabbay  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Bill Spitzak  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Oded Gabbay 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Bill Spitzak 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Oded Gabbay 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Bill Spitzak 
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Can you include my patches to fix the filtering? They have been
>> >> >> > posted
>> >> >> > for a
>> >> >> > long time now.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The last patch makes GOOD/BEST use filtering for scaling images
>> >> >> > down.
>> >> >> > This
>> >> >> > matches the current Cairo behavior and would allow Cairo to use
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > pixman
>> >> >> > backend rather than doing an image fallback for any image scaling
>> >> >> > smaller
>> >> >> > than .75. It also contains a bunch of minor optimizaion and filter
>> >> >> > selection
>> >> >> > tweaks that makes the output somewhat better than current Cairo.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Hi Bill,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Unfortunately, I don't see anyone reviewed your patches, and from
>> >> >> what
>> >> >> I heard, those are quite significant changes.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a shame you didn't bring this up when I did the first
>> >> >> development
>> >> >> release 4 months ago. Then we had enough time to check and test it.
>> >> >> I'm quite hesitant of including such changes right before the final
>> >> >> development version, even with a review.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I did send email on May 22, 2015, in response to your comments.
>> >>
>> >> That's strange, because I only started working on pixman during June of
>> >> 2015...
>> >
>> >
>> > You are right. That was just a general email I sent trying to get
>> > somebody
>> > to look at the patches. Searching in the history I found 3 of these.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> I suggest that you try to contact one of pixman's veterans (Soren,
>> >> >> Siarhei, Matt, Pekka, Ben) offline and ask them nicely to at least
>> >> >> skim over the patches and give a high-level opinion about the
>> >> >> series.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > These were discussed with Soren before. He disagreed with my previous
>> >> > version because I changed to a single filter calculation rather than
>> >> > his
>> >> > pair of filters being convoluted. This version preserves the pair of
>> >> > filters, with some fixes of bugs that caused artifacts in the
>> >> > resulting
>> >> > filters. I'm sending email directly in case they are not reading the
>> >> > pixman
>> >> > list.
>> >>
>> >> Could you send me those emails ?
>> >
>> >
>> > I forwarded the big one from him and my response. The patches I have had
>> > since then I believe address his concerns and preserve the 2-filter
>> > convolution api, they are just bug fixes and some efficiency changes.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also, check if you need to rebase the patches against current pixman
>> >> >> and if so, maybe send the series again. It might stir up a
>> >> >> discussion.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The patches applied to the newest version without any conflicts and
>> >> > my
>> >> > test
>> >> > programs still work. I have resent them to the pixman mailing list.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> Great!
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm willing to review them in terms of correctness and code style,
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> I'm not veteran enough in pixman to give an opinion on the
>> >> >> underlying
>> >> >> changes (which is the most important issue).
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Anything would be great.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe these work well and have been using them for a while. This
>> >> > would
>> >> > allow the removal of redundant code in Cairo, and would allow 2-pass
>> >> > filtering to be done at some point in the future, which would really
>> >> > improve
>> >> > pixman performance.
>> >> >
>> >> ok, I'll try to take a look next week or so.
>> >>
>> >> Oded
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> I read most of the emails you sent me and I cleared time tomorrow to
>> review your patches.
>>
>> Having said that, IMHO, I believe it would be too risky to merge them
>> into the final development release. This is due to a combination of
>> two things:
>>
>> A. This release, although it is a "development release" is used by
>> current distributions (fedora 22,23, ubuntu, debian). That's because
>> there was a big gap in the release schedule earlier this year.
>>
>> B. The changes here affect users of pixman and cairo, by changing the
>> way pixman behaves. So even if your patches are perfect, and the
>> result is a better pixman, we need to give time to users (and to
>> cairo) to adapt to it. This can only be done in master branch, not in
>> stable branches.
>>
>> So, what I 

Re: [Pixman] Plan to release final development version before stable branch

[Oded Gabbay]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Bill Spitzak  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Oded Gabbay  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Bill Spitzak  wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Oded Gabbay 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Bill Spitzak 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Can you include my patches to fix the filtering? They have been
>> >> > posted
>> >> > for a
>> >> > long time now.
>> >> >
>> >> > The last patch makes GOOD/BEST use filtering for scaling images down.
>> >> > This
>> >> > matches the current Cairo behavior and would allow Cairo to use the
>> >> > pixman
>> >> > backend rather than doing an image fallback for any image scaling
>> >> > smaller
>> >> > than .75. It also contains a bunch of minor optimizaion and filter
>> >> > selection
>> >> > tweaks that makes the output somewhat better than current Cairo.
>> >> >
>> >> Hi Bill,
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, I don't see anyone reviewed your patches, and from what
>> >> I heard, those are quite significant changes.
>> >>
>> >> It's a shame you didn't bring this up when I did the first development
>> >> release 4 months ago. Then we had enough time to check and test it.
>> >> I'm quite hesitant of including such changes right before the final
>> >> development version, even with a review.
>> >
>> >
>> > I did send email on May 22, 2015, in response to your comments.
>>
>> That's strange, because I only started working on pixman during June of
>> 2015...
>
>
> You are right. That was just a general email I sent trying to get somebody
> to look at the patches. Searching in the history I found 3 of these.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> I suggest that you try to contact one of pixman's veterans (Soren,
>> >> Siarhei, Matt, Pekka, Ben) offline and ask them nicely to at least
>> >> skim over the patches and give a high-level opinion about the series.
>> >
>> >
>> > These were discussed with Soren before. He disagreed with my previous
>> > version because I changed to a single filter calculation rather than his
>> > pair of filters being convoluted. This version preserves the pair of
>> > filters, with some fixes of bugs that caused artifacts in the resulting
>> > filters. I'm sending email directly in case they are not reading the
>> > pixman
>> > list.
>>
>> Could you send me those emails ?
>
>
> I forwarded the big one from him and my response. The patches I have had
> since then I believe address his concerns and preserve the 2-filter
> convolution api, they are just bug fixes and some efficiency changes.
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Also, check if you need to rebase the patches against current pixman
>> >> and if so, maybe send the series again. It might stir up a discussion.
>> >
>> >
>> > The patches applied to the newest version without any conflicts and my
>> > test
>> > programs still work. I have resent them to the pixman mailing list.
>> >>
>>
>> Great!
>>
>> >>
>> >> I'm willing to review them in terms of correctness and code style, but
>> >> I'm not veteran enough in pixman to give an opinion on the underlying
>> >> changes (which is the most important issue).
>> >
>> >
>> > Anything would be great.
>> >
>> > I believe these work well and have been using them for a while. This
>> > would
>> > allow the removal of redundant code in Cairo, and would allow 2-pass
>> > filtering to be done at some point in the future, which would really
>> > improve
>> > pixman performance.
>> >
>> ok, I'll try to take a look next week or so.
>>
>> Oded
>
>

Hi Bill,

I read most of the emails you sent me and I cleared time tomorrow to
review your patches.

Having said that, IMHO, I believe it would be too risky to merge them
into the final development release. This is due to a combination of
two things:

A. This release, although it is a "development release" is used by
current distributions (fedora 22,23, ubuntu, debian). That's because
there was a big gap in the release schedule earlier this year.

B. The changes here affect users of pixman and cairo, by changing the
way pixman behaves. So even if your patches are perfect, and the
result is a better pixman, we need to give time to users (and to
cairo) to adapt to it. This can only be done in master branch, not in
stable branches.

So, what I intend to do is to:

A. Review your patches and if necessary, ask you to fix issues.

B. Assuming no objection will be made by other pixman developers
during the next couple of weeks, I will merge the patch series into
master *after* I branch out the 0.34 release.

That way, the patch series will be included in the future development
releases that will be packaged inside "testing" distributions, such as
fedora rawhide and debian unstable, and thus we will have time to
receive feedback from users about the changes.

I hope this is accepted by you and by everyone else. If not, please tell me.

Thanks,

   Oded

Re: [Pixman] Plan to release final development version before stable branch

[Bill Spitzak]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Oded Gabbay  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Bill Spitzak  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Oded Gabbay 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Bill Spitzak 
> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Oded Gabbay 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Bill Spitzak 
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Can you include my patches to fix the filtering? They have been
> >> >> > posted
> >> >> > for a
> >> >> > long time now.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The last patch makes GOOD/BEST use filtering for scaling images
> down.
> >> >> > This
> >> >> > matches the current Cairo behavior and would allow Cairo to use the
> >> >> > pixman
> >> >> > backend rather than doing an image fallback for any image scaling
> >> >> > smaller
> >> >> > than .75. It also contains a bunch of minor optimizaion and filter
> >> >> > selection
> >> >> > tweaks that makes the output somewhat better than current Cairo.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Hi Bill,
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately, I don't see anyone reviewed your patches, and from
> what
> >> >> I heard, those are quite significant changes.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a shame you didn't bring this up when I did the first
> development
> >> >> release 4 months ago. Then we had enough time to check and test it.
> >> >> I'm quite hesitant of including such changes right before the final
> >> >> development version, even with a review.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I did send email on May 22, 2015, in response to your comments.
> >>
> >> That's strange, because I only started working on pixman during June of
> >> 2015...
> >
> >
> > You are right. That was just a general email I sent trying to get
> somebody
> > to look at the patches. Searching in the history I found 3 of these.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> I suggest that you try to contact one of pixman's veterans (Soren,
> >> >> Siarhei, Matt, Pekka, Ben) offline and ask them nicely to at least
> >> >> skim over the patches and give a high-level opinion about the series.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > These were discussed with Soren before. He disagreed with my previous
> >> > version because I changed to a single filter calculation rather than
> his
> >> > pair of filters being convoluted. This version preserves the pair of
> >> > filters, with some fixes of bugs that caused artifacts in the
> resulting
> >> > filters. I'm sending email directly in case they are not reading the
> >> > pixman
> >> > list.
> >>
> >> Could you send me those emails ?
> >
> >
> > I forwarded the big one from him and my response. The patches I have had
> > since then I believe address his concerns and preserve the 2-filter
> > convolution api, they are just bug fixes and some efficiency changes.
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, check if you need to rebase the patches against current pixman
> >> >> and if so, maybe send the series again. It might stir up a
> discussion.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The patches applied to the newest version without any conflicts and my
> >> > test
> >> > programs still work. I have resent them to the pixman mailing list.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> Great!
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm willing to review them in terms of correctness and code style,
> but
> >> >> I'm not veteran enough in pixman to give an opinion on the underlying
> >> >> changes (which is the most important issue).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Anything would be great.
> >> >
> >> > I believe these work well and have been using them for a while. This
> >> > would
> >> > allow the removal of redundant code in Cairo, and would allow 2-pass
> >> > filtering to be done at some point in the future, which would really
> >> > improve
> >> > pixman performance.
> >> >
> >> ok, I'll try to take a look next week or so.
> >>
> >> Oded
> >
> >
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I read most of the emails you sent me and I cleared time tomorrow to
> review your patches.
>
> Having said that, IMHO, I believe it would be too risky to merge them
> into the final development release. This is due to a combination of
> two things:
>
> A. This release, although it is a "development release" is used by
> current distributions (fedora 22,23, ubuntu, debian). That's because
> there was a big gap in the release schedule earlier this year.
>
> B. The changes here affect users of pixman and cairo, by changing the
> way pixman behaves. So even if your patches are perfect, and the
> result is a better pixman, we need to give time to users (and to
> cairo) to adapt to it. This can only be done in master branch, not in
> stable branches.
>
> So, what I intend to do is to:
>
> A. Review your patches and if necessary, ask you to fix issues.
>
> B. Assuming no objection will be made by other pixman developers
> during the next couple of weeks, I will merge the patch series into
> master *after* I branch out the 0.34 release.
>
> That way, the patch 

Re: [Pixman] Plan to release final development version before stable branch

[Bill Spitzak]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Oded Gabbay  wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Bill Spitzak  wrote:
> > Can you include my patches to fix the filtering? They have been posted
> for a
> > long time now.
> >
> > The last patch makes GOOD/BEST use filtering for scaling images down.
> This
> > matches the current Cairo behavior and would allow Cairo to use the
> pixman
> > backend rather than doing an image fallback for any image scaling smaller
> > than .75. It also contains a bunch of minor optimizaion and filter
> selection
> > tweaks that makes the output somewhat better than current Cairo.
> >
> Hi Bill,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't see anyone reviewed your patches, and from what
> I heard, those are quite significant changes.
>
> It's a shame you didn't bring this up when I did the first development
> release 4 months ago. Then we had enough time to check and test it.
> I'm quite hesitant of including such changes right before the final
> development version, even with a review.
>

I did send email on May 22, 2015, in response to your comments.

I suggest that you try to contact one of pixman's veterans (Soren,
> Siarhei, Matt, Pekka, Ben) offline and ask them nicely to at least
> skim over the patches and give a high-level opinion about the series.
>

These were discussed with Soren before. He disagreed with my previous
version because I changed to a single filter calculation rather than his
pair of filters being convoluted. This version preserves the pair of
filters, with some fixes of bugs that caused artifacts in the resulting
filters. I'm sending email directly in case they are not reading the pixman
list.

>
> Also, check if you need to rebase the patches against current pixman
> and if so, maybe send the series again. It might stir up a discussion.
>

The patches applied to the newest version without any conflicts and my test
programs still work. I have resent them to the pixman mailing list.

>
> I'm willing to review them in terms of correctness and code style, but
> I'm not veteran enough in pixman to give an opinion on the underlying
> changes (which is the most important issue).
>

Anything would be great.

I believe these work well and have been using them for a while. This would
allow the removal of redundant code in Cairo, and would allow 2-pass
filtering to be done at some point in the future, which would really
improve pixman performance.
___
Pixman mailing list
Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman

Re: [Pixman] Plan to release final development version before stable branch

[Oded Gabbay]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:19 PM, Bill Spitzak  wrote:
> Can you include my patches to fix the filtering? They have been posted for a
> long time now.
>
> The last patch makes GOOD/BEST use filtering for scaling images down. This
> matches the current Cairo behavior and would allow Cairo to use the pixman
> backend rather than doing an image fallback for any image scaling smaller
> than .75. It also contains a bunch of minor optimizaion and filter selection
> tweaks that makes the output somewhat better than current Cairo.
>
Hi Bill,

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone reviewed your patches, and from what
I heard, those are quite significant changes.

It's a shame you didn't bring this up when I did the first development
release 4 months ago. Then we had enough time to check and test it.
I'm quite hesitant of including such changes right before the final
development version, even with a review.

I suggest that you try to contact one of pixman's veterans (Soren,
Siarhei, Matt, Pekka, Ben) offline and ask them nicely to at least
skim over the patches and give a high-level opinion about the series.

Also, check if you need to rebase the patches against current pixman
and if so, maybe send the series again. It might stir up a discussion.

I'm willing to review them in terms of correctness and code style, but
I'm not veteran enough in pixman to give an opinion on the underlying
changes (which is the most important issue).

I'm really sorry I don't have a better answer.

  Oded

>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Oded Gabbay  wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm planning to release a new pixman development version (0.33.6) on
>> 12/16. Immediately after that, I'm going to create a new stable branch
>> - 0.34.
>>
>> Once that happen, only fixes will be accepted to that branch until the
>> stable release sometime in late January. Regular development will
>> continue in master.
>>
>> If you have some pending patches please shout.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>  Oded
>> ___
>> Pixman mailing list
>> Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
>
>
___
Pixman mailing list
Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman

Re: [Pixman] Plan to release final development version before stable branch

[Bill Spitzak]

Can you include my patches to fix the filtering? They have been posted for
a long time now.

The last patch makes GOOD/BEST use filtering for scaling images down. This
matches the current Cairo behavior and would allow Cairo to use the pixman
backend rather than doing an image fallback for any image scaling smaller
than .75. It also contains a bunch of minor optimizaion and filter
selection tweaks that makes the output somewhat better than current Cairo.


On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Oded Gabbay  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm planning to release a new pixman development version (0.33.6) on
> 12/16. Immediately after that, I'm going to create a new stable branch
> - 0.34.
>
> Once that happen, only fixes will be accepted to that branch until the
> stable release sometime in late January. Regular development will
> continue in master.
>
> If you have some pending patches please shout.
>
> Thanks,
>
>  Oded
> ___
> Pixman mailing list
> Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
>
___
Pixman mailing list
Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman

[Pixman] Plan to release final development version before stable branch

[Oded Gabbay]

Hi All,

I'm planning to release a new pixman development version (0.33.6) on
12/16. Immediately after that, I'm going to create a new stable branch
- 0.34.

Once that happen, only fixes will be accepted to that branch until the
stable release sometime in late January. Regular development will
continue in master.

If you have some pending patches please shout.

Thanks,

 Oded
___
Pixman mailing list
Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman