General X.org plans for Natty
Discussion of general X / mesa / libdrm plans for Natty.
General decisions to make:
* What release of X to target?
* What release of mesa to target?
* What release of -intel, -ati, -nouveau to target?
* How do we decide when to install nouveau 3D by default?
Natty-specifics queries:
* What to do about r300c / r300g mesa DRI drivers
* Will we need to do anything about r600c / r600g?
Blueprint information
- Status:
- Complete
- Approver:
- Bryce Harrington
- Priority:
- High
- Drafter:
- Chris Halse Rogers
- Direction:
- Needs approval
- Assignee:
- Chris Halse Rogers
- Definition:
- Approved
- Series goal:
- Accepted for natty
- Implementation:
-
Implemented
- Milestone target:
- None
- Started by
- Bryce Harrington
- Completed by
- Bryce Harrington
Whiteboard
xserver 1.10 schedule:
Merge window closes: 2010-12-1
Non-critical bug deadline: 2011-02-1
1.10 Release: 2011-02-18
mesa schedule:
7.9.1, 7.10 - Q4 2010 (December)
7.10.1, 7.11 - Q1 2010 (April)
Version decisions:
* Mesa 7.10
* Non-decision on Xserver:
* Will have either 1.9 + 1.10's input layer backported for multi-touch enablement work, or 1.10
* Will decide at end of 1.10's merge window, based on size of changes merged in & likely proprietary driver support.
* intel / radeon / nouveau / libdrm: will ship most recent stable release; there doesn't seem to be anything we particularly want to grab or avoid on the horizon.
Gallium:
* Switch to r300g by default; distro-patch in xorg.conf option to switch back to classic. Load classic when KMS is not available
* Go with upstream default for r600g/r600c; this is currently r600c. Add xorg.conf option to switch.
Work items:
[raof] Apply Robert Hooker's patch to -radeon to enable selection of classic/gallium DRI at X load time: DONE
[raof] Build both r300g/r300c and r600g/r600c in mesa, rename classic drivers to avoid name clashes: DONE
[doko] test xvfb on natty: DONE
Work items (natty-alpha-1):
[bryce] Send email with summary of version decisions to stake holders: DONE
[raof] Start ubuntu-x discussion to decide X server version at 1.10 merge-window close: DONE
Work items (natty-alpha-2):
[dbarth] Provide X team with a Unity test-suite: DONE
[chasedouglas] Investigate input-redirection patches (not needed for Natty):POSTPONED
Work items:
[raof] Talk to debian about adding some form of xvfb test to xserver build time checks: POSTPONED
pitti, 2010-11-08: Seems fine to me, but I'd still like Bryce to do the actual approval, for peer review.
bryce, 2010-11-08: All looks good to me. I would suggest getting the xvfb check added soonish, at least before xserver is merged in, since we'll get maximum benefit from it the earlier it is added.
