On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 07:02:27 +1000, Dave Airlie
> I'd have to agree here, I think we need to do 1.9 following the same
> process again and refine it a lot more.
Yeah, developing the release process is almost as hard as developing the
> Keith there were large stages during the 1.8 process where master was
> broken and you weren't tasked to fixing it, and people were relying on
> stuff from the list or other peoples branches.
Would it be better to just pull broken stuff out of master at these
times? There are big portions of the server that I can't frankly test or
fix, like exa, as I have no hardware which uses that code.
> This doesn't seem like the way forward, and I suspect if you want to
> take responsibility for the tree you need to appoint someone else to
> push build and correctness fixes while you are unavailable.
Yeah, if the goal is to keep master usable by people all of the time,
then we need a fallback plan for cases when it just doesn't
build. Having it possible for someone else to fix the build seems
Would more frequent RC releases help? Some people don't want 'master',
they just want something 'new'. I wasn't happy with the frequency of RC
releases during 1.8; they're not hard to do and I don't think they need
to be anything more than 'what's up this week'.