Re: X11R6.8.2 maintenance release plans and call for comments.

Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 October 2004 15:13, Jim Gettys wrote:
> 
>>Kristian, Donny, Torry, Mike, Roland, Daniel, Alan and Leon have been
>>discussing details of stable release policies in the Release Wrangler's
>>list; we need to strike a good balance of convenience vs. rigor here.
>>A serious strawman of policy was written by Kristian here:
>>http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/release-wranglers/2004-October/001070.html
> 
> I thought Kristian's proposal was pretty solid.  Torrey had raised the 
> objection that the requirement for a bug number for each change might be 
> excessive.  Personally bugzilla is so integrated with my workflow that I 
> don't see this as an issue.  I would at minimum like for each change to 
> include _some_ external reference, be that a link to a message in the mail 
> archives, or a distributor bug number, or whatever.  I can deal with that 
> being a SHOULD rather than a MUST though.

What should be done about things like the endianess issues in the 
t_vertex code in the r128 and r200 drivers?  I committed fixes to Mesa 
CVS (trunk).  I'd really like to see those fixes committed.  Without 
them, those drivers really suck on big-endian systems. :)  I suspect 
that radeon driver has the same problems, but I don't have any PowerPC 
R100 cards to test.

If none of these bugs had fixes already in CVS, I'd suggests that a bug 
be filed for all of them (i.e., "Big-endian problems with t_vertex 
drivers") and that depend on a bug for each of the individual drivers. 
Is that still the right answer?