Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

X.Org 7.5 / X Server 1.7: No Branching, No Beta

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

  • X.Org 7.5 / X Server 1.7: No Branching, No Beta

    Phoronix: X.Org 7.5 / X Server 1.7: No Branching, No Beta

    Last week we reported it looked like X.Org 7.5 would be released late, and sadly, we are now behind on two important milestones in the road to releasing X.Org 7.5 / X Server 1.7. X.Org 7.5 has already been challenged by a few delays and was supposed to be released in April, but it took a month until the release manager even released the release didn't happen...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzM5Ng

  • #2
    Oh noes!!!

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a post a week or so ago saying that so far they had not seen a need to branch, so the lack of branching may not indicate a delay in the release plans.

      Normally branches happen when you are trying to stabilize one set of code for a release at the same time a new slug of changes needs to go into master, and AFAICS all the 1.7 work is able to be done in master for now.

      Comment


      • #4
        As long as it is released for Ubuntu 9.10 and the likes...

        I seriously don't understand how companys like Novell etc. don't have more people working on this really, really important piece of software. Guys like MostAwesomeDude should be hired ASAP in my opinion.

        Comment


        • #5
          I can't believe it either!

          This is the most important piece of software after the kernel and should be under a serious management, just like the Linux kernel.

          Otherwise, *nix will always be too far behind, as long as the User-end Desktop is concerned.

          Comment


          • #6
            and opensuse:

            https://features.opensuse.org/306903
            https://features.opensuse.org/306657

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bridgman View Post
              I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a post a week or so ago saying that so far they had not seen a need to branch, so the lack of branching may not indicate a delay in the release plans.
              http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showp...7&postcount=40

              ... I think Michel missed it since it wasn't one of the first post in that topic...

              Comment


              • #8
                This is probably going to be a repeat of 7.4

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by d2kx View Post
                  I seriously don't understand how companys like Novell etc. don't have more people working on this really, really important piece of software. Guys like MostAwesomeDude should be hired ASAP in my opinion.
                  How flattering. :3

                  I'm doing GSoC, and I'll probably go work for [insert open-source company here] when I graduate.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The most important part of graphics system should be located in DRI part in my opinion, and indeed it is experiencing dramatic evolution in these 2 years. In terms of X.org, actually I didn't see anything needs an overhaul(it is too old and too big, unless a re-design was carried out, or it wouldn't have much improvement).
                    However, if it could arouse widely attention and interests of those IT gaints such as Intel, IBM, it would have a much brighter future. Just as KMS+DRI does.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Can I propose a different way to look at this ? From where I sit, Xorg itself has become pretty stable and "just works" most of the time.

                      If you ask most people what the big problems are with Linux graphics and UI today, most of the answers will relate to things that are not part of Xorg, although some of the major projects going on (like Kernel Modesetting) do require some corresponding changes in the Xorg tree.

                      We still need new Xorg releases, and things are still improving, but honestly I don't see Xorg itself being the bottleneck in the adoption of Linux on the desktop.
                      Last edited by bridgman; 07-22-2009, 10:47 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                        Can I propose a different way to look at this ? From where I sit, Xorg itself has become pretty stable and "just works" most of the time.

                        If you ask most people what the big problems are with Linux graphics and UI today, most of the answers will relate to things that are not part of Xorg, although some of the major projects going on (like Kernel Modesetting) do require some corresponding changes in the Xorg tree.

                        We still need new Xorg releases, and things are still improving, but honestly I don't see Xorg itself being the bottleneck in the adoption of Linux on the desktop.
                        It works, yeah. But if you know your Windows, you will notice how sluggish it is at times. Like when when you open a settings menu or the about box of a problem and you see the window render things. Or when you maximize a window and first the window is rendererd and then the title bar afterwards. And Composite often is not on par with its performance, especially with stuff like scrolling web pages etc.. You should never have to notice anything of the above, really.

                        Now I do not what's causing these problems, but from what I experience, things improve dramatically with every half-year releases of Xorg and drivers and are probably no problem anymore in the future.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I believe most of those issues fall either partly or completely outside Xorg itself. I think everyone agrees that "the graphics stack" needs significant additional work, but Xorg is only one part of that stack (albeit an important one) and that part does not seem to be the "source of the problem" these days.

                          A number of people have suggested Xorg be redefined (both the software product and the guiding organization) to include all of the core graphics stack but that would bring a whole new set of management problems along with it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                            Can I propose a different way to look at this ? From where I sit, Xorg itself has become pretty stable and "just works" most of the time.

                            If you ask most people what the big problems are with Linux graphics and UI today, most of the answers will relate to things that are not part of Xorg, although some of the major projects going on (like Kernel Modesetting) do require some corresponding changes in the Xorg tree.

                            We still need new Xorg releases, and things are still improving, but honestly I don't see Xorg itself being the bottleneck in the adoption of Linux on the desktop.
                            if it mostly works then it should be mostly easy to maintain a reliable and well communicated development process.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Most (all?) of the problems mentioned here are in the process of being solved and/or about system-wide interactions beyond X.org. For example, mapping of windows is the domain of the window manager. Of course, the X server plays a big part in it, and *of course* it must be improved. Just point your blame in the right direction, please

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X