Jordan Justen <[email protected]> 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. I think we should get all our specs out and into the Khronos.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
