General X.org plans for Natty

Registered by Chris Halse Rogers on 2010-10-22

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 on 2010-11-08
Completed by
Bryce Harrington on 2011-04-07

Related branches

Sprints

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.

(?)

Work Items