On 11/14/2014 07:07 AM, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Emil Velikov
> 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.
On 14/11/14 14:39, Emil Velikov 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
On 15/11/14 17:50, Marek Olšák wrote:
> I've always found the X.Org versioning scheme unintuitive. This is
> actually for the first time after ~5 years of contributing to open
> source graphics that I finally understand how the X versioning works.
> Granted, I had never been interested in it anyway
On 15/11/14 17:44, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> On 14 November 2014 19:50, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov
>>> wrote:
Hello all,
This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't
I've always found the X.Org versioning scheme unintuitive. This is
actually for the first time after ~5 years of contributing to open
source graphics that I finally understand how the X versioning works.
Granted, I had never been interested in it anyway.
If you need to have a web page on x.org tha
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 14 November 2014 19:50, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov
>> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use
>>> a more conventional numbering for th
If it helps explain things, X.Org's versioning scheme is documented in:
http://www.x.org/releases/X11R7.7/doc/xorg-docs/Versions.html
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
Oracle Solaris Engineering - http://blogs.oracle.com/alanc
On 14 November 2014 19:50, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov
> 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
On 14 November 2014 16:48, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
>> On 14/11/14 15:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov
>>> wrote:
Hello all,
This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov 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.
Am 14.11.2014 um 15:39 schrieb Emil Velikov:
> 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
On Friday, November 14, 2014 02:39:24 PM Emil Velikov 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
> ...
>
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 14/11/14 15:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov
>> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> This is an old question that I had laying around - why doesn't mesa use
>>> a more conventional numbering for the develo
Hi,
On 14 November 2014 15:07, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Emil Velikov
> wrote:
> > 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 fir
On 14/11/14 15:24, Ilia Mirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov
> 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
On 14/11/14 15:07, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Emil Velikov
> 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.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Emil Velikov 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.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Emil Velikov 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.
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.
A
19 matches
Mail list logo