On Wednesday, 2017-11-22 12:28:17 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote: > Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com> writes: > > > On 2017-11-22 09:59:34, Eric Engestrom wrote: > >> A recent thread [1] made me check our local specs to see which ones were > >> upstream. This series removes the ones that are identical upstream > >> (modulo "TBD" extension numbers in some cases). > > > > While I don't have too strong of an opinion on it, I think we should > > keep a copy of Mesa specs that are in the upstream registry. > > > > I think it makes sense to send a patch to mesa-dev for new Mesa specs > > or changes to Mesa specs. Having a copy in docs/specs works well for > > that. > > The downside is that that process means that we'll inevitably keep stale > or divergent copies in Mesa, when the canonical location for GL specs is > Khronos. We do have a reasonable process for modifying Khronos's specs > now, which we didn't before.
Exactly, our local copies are not the authority, Khronos is. Changes to specs should be sent to Khronos, on the relevant repo, by creating a pull request like I've now done for the specs I mentioned in the cover letter: https://github.com/KhronosGroup/EGL-Registry/pull/36 https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/132 https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/133 https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/134 https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/135 https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/136 https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/137 > > I think we should get all our specs out and into the Khronos. Ack; should I let the specs authors do this themselves, or push them for them? _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
