Ah, I'd was curious why there'd been no cvs updates in so long! It the
experimental-1 branch where development occurs, then? A note about this
on the website would be helpful!
Actually, I was under the impression that the experimental branch was just
a temporary thing until Mesa-3.1-beta2
Keith Whitwell wrote:
"C.J. Beyer" wrote:
Ah, I'd was curious why there'd been no cvs updates in so long! It the
experimental-1 branch where development occurs, then? A note about this
on the website would be helpful!
Actually, I was under the impression that the experimental
Brian Paul wrote:
Keith, I'd like to hear what your longer-term coding plans are. Do
you see a milestone in your work for a 3.1 release?
I think you could say that the latest batch of changes pretty much
represents the end of a certain line of improvements. I know Holger is
doing some
On Tue, 8 Jun 1999, Brian Paul wrote:
The real question is whether Brian wants the next release version to
include the new code or not.
I don't have a date in mind for the next beta release.
I'd like to keep the mainline code pretty much stable. After Keith
has tested and debugged
Stephen J Baker wrote:
One SPECIFIC reason to go this way is that it gives people
writing low level drivers a stable (even numbered) platform
to work with.
What does everyone else think about this idea?
OK, but really that's what having a development and stable branch in cvs
acheives.
Stephen J Baker wrote:
Perhaps it's time for Mesa to go to the dual-stream approach of the
Linux Kernel and other packages like The GIMP where odd numbered
releases are where new code goes and even numbered get all the bug
fixes.
...
What does everyone else think about this idea?
I'll
