Hi Emil, Emil Velikov wrote on 12.11.2015 18:45: > On 12 November 2015 at 15:36, Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez > <sigles...@igalia.com> wrote: >> On 12/11/15 15:28, Timothy Arceri wrote: >>> On 13 November 2015 12:22:39 am AEDT, "Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez" >>> <sigles...@igalia.com> wrote: >>>> 'shared' was added in ARB_uniform_buffer_object and also used >>>> in ARB_shader_storage_buffer_object. >>> >>> Hi Samuel, >>> >>> Shared for UBO and SSBOs is not a key word its just an identifier for a >>> layout qualifier, are you sure you need to make it available for those >>> extensions? >>> >> >> Right. Please ignore this patch. >> > In this case, may I suggest that you tag the patch as Rejected (or > similar) in patchwork [1]. Afaict there are quite a few patches in > there from yourself and fellow colleagues. Any chance someone can go > through them and change their status appropriately ?
Since I'm reading this from time to time I was wondering whether Mesa wouldn't be better served by Phabricator instance? Maybe Matt and Tom, who send in most of AMD's patches for the AMDGPU backend in LLVM can weigh in here? I'm using Phabricator myself for a big project and I must say it's really neat. Most status/meta updates can happen automatically as you commit your changes, the review state is tracked properly and if a patch was rejected/abandoned that is usually also clear from the state. Ie. in most cases there is no need to have multiple people walk through the same list of patches/bugs etc. (Bonus: for switching over from a Bugzilla to Phabricator, there's a pretty big precedent with complete porting tools: Wikimedia did that) Cheers, Kai
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
