On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 06:25:45 PM Ian Romanick wrote: > On 11/18/2015 06:15 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:07 PM, Ian Romanick <i...@freedesktop.org> wrote: > >> On 11/18/2015 03:01 PM, Nanley Chery wrote: > >>> From: Nanley Chery <nanley.g.ch...@intel.com> > >>> > >>> Make it easier to determine where to add new extensions. > >>> Performed with the vim sort command. > >> > >> Uh... no, please. Extensions should be sorted in each group, but what > >> is wrong with the old group ordering? ARB, KHR, OES, EXT, then vendors. > > > > There's nothing wrong with it other than it's not possible to ensure > > people get it right (see this patch). By actually alphabetizing the > > list, we can programmatically check that things are ordered properly > > (see patch 2/2). > > Well... you can, it's just more work. > > > I don't see a problem with reordering the groups... that doesn't make > > anything harder. > > Most of the time when I'm looking at things in the extension list, I'm > trying to look at things by group. Most of the groups stay together > when the list is totally alphabetized, so that doesn't hurt. What I > think will be annoying is having all of the vendor extensions scattered > about. > > I guess we can try it like this. I reserve the right to submit patches > the reorder the groups and update the test if I find it too annoying. :)
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing - it's kind of nice having ARB (official), OES (official ES), EXT (multi-vendor/semi-official), and vendor extensions organized. But, "alphabetize!" is simple and easy to explain, and since it still keeps all the ARB/OES/EXT together, it's pretty reasonable even if you like the groupings. So I'm fine with it too. I like the idea of having a test that enforces it. --Ken
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev