Mesa 18.0 Has Been Off The Tracks For More Than One Month

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Mesa 18.0 Has Been Off The Tracks For More Than One Month

Mesa 18.0 had been due for release around mid-February, but that didn't happen and there hasn't even been a release candidate in more than one month...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Mesa-18.0-Off-Te-Tracks

[dungeon]

18.0-branchpoint created at 23. january, so maybe 2 months after is a right time for release ... For example kernel:

Stable kernel updates are released on as-needed basis, usually 2-3 a month.

https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

Point is on no point as releases are there on as needed basis, there is no stright nor exact schedule really.

Same for Mesa, since it aim to do 4 releases per year, Q1, Q2, Q3 & Q4 or what are these 0, 1, 2 & 3 points - anything released within Q timeframe is considered fine - so .0 should be there by the end of march max.

It can't be ideal as it depends on else anyway, as Ideally first mesa RC should be when LLVM release happen, yes right that so that both could have a bit if time to be fixed or something

Someone probably think they should be both released in the same time and to be fixed later on, but nope mine boy nothing is fixed later on - only bullshit is prolonged Mesa uses LLVM and not LLVM uses Mesa, the opposite is not true as if you depend on something for release that should be released already not the opposite

Ha, ha, maybe Mesa should do 2 serious releases per year and another two not so serious or something like that sounds more serious All that goes in line with 2 LLVM releases per year and even with kernel it is similar situation really to be stright - there are just 1 or 2 serious (longterm) releases upstream per year too Yes, kernel do 5 upstream releases yearly but to no avail as in the end only about 2 are seriously supported upstream. There are 3-4 short lived upstream kernels, but only 1-2 serious another ones

That is how Mesa releases should be done, 2 serious releases are more than enough per year... anyway for joking we have git all the time anyway

[Anvil]

an ya wonder why people still need to depend on Closed source drivers, Mesa is a Mess by the looks of it.

[boombatower]

an ya wonder why people still need to depend on Closed source drivers, Mesa is a Mess by the looks of it.

If by mess you mean outperforming windows for the games I play regularly then yes. This includes running latest Mesa RC.

[Marc Driftmeyer]

If by mess you mean outperforming windows for the games I play regularly then yes. This includes running latest Mesa RC.

Name the games.

[dungeon]

If by mess you mean...

By mess here it is meant as how we are kings in "the exception rather than the rule" category, we are sort of "kings who like to troll blobs", etc... on the other hand meanwhile when we need to release something "to rule them all" seriosly, that usualy just fail

This way long time ago i said how The Year of Linux Desktop will be when Del Boy become millionare

[eydee]

an ya wonder why people still need to depend on Closed source drivers, Mesa is a Mess by the looks of it.

When it comes to closed drivers, if there's no significant progress by the next release, they just re-release the same thing with a higher version number. Remember fglrx? It was "updated" every month, but nothing ever changed except for the occasional (and extremely late) kernel/xorg compatibility upgrades. Critical bugs lived on for years, and many never got fixed before the driver was discontinued.

[gutigone]

there has been just done fix landing since RC4

uhhhh, do you mean just one fix?

[starshipeleven]

an ya wonder why people still need to depend on Closed source drivers, Mesa is a Mess by the looks of it.

Do you need reassuring version bumps on the same code with minor changes to sleep well at night?

Because that's the only difference here, proprietary can't "miss" a release, but this just means they publish the same stuff with a different version.

[andre30correia]

maybe Valve should control the releases