Chad Versace <chad.vers...@linux.intel.com> writes: > On 04/23/2013 09:19 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >> Chad Versace <chad.vers...@linux.intel.com> writes: >> >>> On 04/23/2013 06:19 AM, Ian Romanick wrote: >>>> On 04/23/2013 03:28 AM, Chad Versace wrote: >>>>> This allows maintainers/packagers/testers to tag the build with >>>>> information that will be reported by GL_VERSION. >>>>> >>>>> If the environemt variable or make variable MESA_VERSION_STRING_EXTRA is >>>> environment >>>> >>>>> set, then its values will appear in the GL_VERSION string immediately >>>>> after "Mesa X.Y" and before "(git-xxxxxxx)". >>>>> >>>>> This patch implements supports MESA_VERSION_STRING_EXTRA only for Android. >>>>> Other build systems are left as an excercise. >>>> >>>> Why is this useful? >>> >>> The commit message says why: it allows packagers to tag the build with info >>> that gets reported by GL_VERSION. >>> >>> How is it used now? The Mesa that gets shipped bi-weekly internally in Intel >>> for Android is not a snapshot of master nor of any stable branch. Yet, that >>> snapshot of Mesa is "official", as far as Intel's Android efforts are >>> concerned. >>> The Android team is using this patch to inject into GL_VERSION the name of >>> the bi-weekly >>> Android release. >>> >>> Without this patch, you may one day get a bug report that says: "This bug >>> exists >>> in Mesa 9.2-devel (git-xxxxxxx)". Then, you will search for the git sha1, >>> and >>> unable to find it, yell bloody murder and close the bug as invalid. With >>> this >>> patch, though, you may get a bug report that says: "This bug exists in >>> Mesa 9.2-devel otc-android-2013-04-23-blah (git-xxxxxxx)", and then you >>> will know how to find that Mesa. >> >> So along with a useless sha1, I have a useless date that doesn't tell me >> what Mesa it was actually based off of. I say this having tried to >> figure out what Mesa actually got used in one of these android tests and >> failed. > > Rather than jabs and parrying, let's turn this conversation into a > constructive one. If you receive a > communication about Mesa on Android, how do you want the Mesa version > communicated to you so that you can fetch and then inspect that same Mesa? > > Keep in mind that the Android Mesa tree is regularly rebased onto master, so > the shas > are not as useful as you would hope. Also know that we have git tags for > the "useless" dates if you know where to fetch from.
What I want most importantly is the sha1 from Mesa master that android was forked from (so I can quickly answer "was this run with the hiz changes we made?" for example). Secondarily, I want the sha1 for the secret tree so that I can go log it (which will always be available, if you're tagging them all) if I really need to find what hacks were put on top. So far, the one time I went and actually did that, it wasn't that interesting. A date that corresponds to a tag is only less specific than the sha1 pointed to by the tag.
pgp6vJhBWb5wc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
