On 13 September 2016 at 21:05, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote: > Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> writes: > >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On 12 September 2016 at 15:35, Ilia Mirkin <imir...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Keeping diff/patches in git always felt like a hack, imho. Plus >>>>> most/all(?) distros rely on the Mesa headers, so I'm not sure how that >>>>> is going to work. >>>> >>>> The alternatives are considerably more painful for just a handful of >>>> files with a small number of diffs. This would be as a tool for >>>> developers like us who update the mesa versions by importing new KHR >>>> versions, which will not have our local changes applied. The patch >>>> would not be used as part of the build process or anything else. >>>> >>> The goal being to have the patches alongside the patched headers. >>> This way one can use them as reference ? Sure sounds great imho. >> >> Exactly. So that when I download new KHR headers, I just apply the >> patch to them (and hope it applies), and if not, look at what was >> being done and try to repeat the process. Then I regenerate the patch >> against the (new) originals and check the whole thing in. > > Or you could just use git like normal: You have a public branch of the > unchanged headers. You make your own changes to the headers on master. > When you want to update to new upstream headers, you check out the > unchanged-headers branch, commit new unchanged upstreams there, check > out master, and git merge. I'd imagine that our (people/companies who are Khronos members) time would be better spent on upstreaming things, rather than finding ways how to manage the diff.
Or is it just me ? -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
