Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa Release Shake-Up: Mesa 8.1 Is Now Mesa 9.0

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mesa Release Shake-Up: Mesa 8.1 Is Now Mesa 9.0

    Phoronix: Mesa Release Shake-Up: Mesa 8.1 Is Now Mesa 9.0

    Well, there isn't a major Mesa release happening this month as was originally planned. There also isn't going to be a Mesa 8.1 release. Instead, Mesa 9.0 will be released in September...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE1NzU

  • #2
    Now it looks like we're getting there a release early, albeit they still need to catch-up on OpenGL 3.2/3.3 and OpenGL 4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 and GL ES 3.0 before being caught up with the leading proprietary drivers and upstream Khronos specifications.
    PUUUUHLEEEEESEEEE stop stating this EVERY TIME YOU POST AN ARTICLE ON OpenGL version support. It's getting really tiring.

    Comment


    • #3
      So what was wrong with calling the release that enables OpenGL 3.1 Mesa 8.1? I expected Mesa 9.0 would be the one with OpenGL 4.0 and Mesa 10.0 the one with OpenGL 5.0. Are they trying to compete with DirectX on who has the biggest version number?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Ansla View Post
        So what was wrong with calling the release that enables OpenGL 3.1 Mesa 8.1? I expected Mesa 9.0 would be the one with OpenGL 4.0 and Mesa 10.0 the one with OpenGL 5.0. Are they trying to compete with DirectX on who has the biggest version number?
        Numbers don't mean much anyway. They could have named it Mesa 0xB16B00B5.

        Features is where its at.

        Comment


        • #5
          Will it land into Ubuntu 12.10?

          Comment


          • #6
            89c51: "Numbers don't mean much anyway. They could have named it Mesa 0xB16B00B5"

            LOL

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
              Numbers don't mean much anyway. They could have named it Mesa 0xB16B00B5.

              Features is where its at.
              Microsoft might have a copyright for that number... Anyway, for mesa the numbers DO mean something important as the major only increments when a new OpenGL version is implemented.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ansla View Post
                So what was wrong with calling the release that enables OpenGL 3.1 Mesa 8.1? I expected Mesa 9.0 would be the one with OpenGL 4.0 and Mesa 10.0 the one with OpenGL 5.0. Are they trying to compete with DirectX on who has the biggest version number?
                Well Mesa 4 added OpenGL 1.3 support, 5 was OpenGL 1.4 support, 6 was OpenGL 1.5 support, 7 was OpenGL 2.1 support, 8 was OpenGL 3 support. By that reasoning it makes sense that 9 would be 3.1.

                Comment


                • #9
                  True, in that context it makes sense. I didn't use mesa before version 6 so I had no idea this was going on for so long. And since version 6 it just happened they bumped it for 2.x and 3.0.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Version number bumping has become very popular lately.
                    Firefox used to stand for years on 1.x/2.x versions, lately they've been running a major version what seems like every month.
                    Linux kernel took the major jump from 2.x to 3.x after sitting on 2.6.x for something like 8 years.
                    MS used to slowly increment their 3.x wondoze, then their 4.x, now suddenly they're going from 5 to 6 (visturd), 7, 8 in a matter of no time.

                    I think its because stoopid people associate big number jumps with dramatic changes. Not sure why they feel this way.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                      I think its because stoopid people associate big number jumps with dramatic changes.
                      Or maybe it's because carying one extra digit that never changes doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm personally fond of the udev/system release numbering. There's only one that is used for bugfix, minor and major releases with no useless decimals or any other clutter. Currently it's at 188.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                        Version number bumping has become very popular lately.
                        Firefox used to stand for years on 1.x/2.x versions, lately they've been running a major version what seems like every month.
                        Linux kernel took the major jump from 2.x to 3.x after sitting on 2.6.x for something like 8 years.
                        MS used to slowly increment their 3.x wondoze, then their 4.x, now suddenly they're going from 5 to 6 (visturd), 7, 8 in a matter of no time.

                        I think its because stoopid people associate big number jumps with dramatic changes. Not sure why they feel this way.
                        If you look at the kernel versions with each release, 6.0 was Vista, and 6.1 was seven... so wonder what Window Eight has coming, 6.2 or 7.0?
                        So where the hell did Windows Seven and Eight come from? It's all just silly marketing anyway.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Just look at a graph of driver performance vs. version number. It should be obvious that increasing the version number usually improves performance

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            They might as well drop the ".0" part if they continue at this rate

                            Well, I'll always advocate my own GemVer (although it's not that suitable for libraries).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TheCycoONE View Post
                              Well Mesa 4 added OpenGL 1.3 support, 5 was OpenGL 1.4 support, 6 was OpenGL 1.5 support, 7 was OpenGL 2.1 support, 8 was OpenGL 3 support. By that reasoning it makes sense that 9 would be 3.1.
                              Actually it looks like 9 is reserved for geometry shaders, i.e. 3.2/3.3.

                              OG.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X