On 13 November 2015 at 09:14, Kai Wasserbäch <k...@dev.carbon-project.org> wrote: > 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) > Regardless of how clever the tool is there is always some user interaction needed. Damien have been working on improving patchwork and I believe it will be working pretty neatly in the not too distant future.
Personally I'm not too fussed what we use - although the general question on X vs Y is a po-tay-to po-tah-to like case. To each their own :) Although I'd suspect that we can/should have a discussion on next XDC on topics such as these ? Tom, we are waiting for the bugfixes to be re-spinned (since June/July) :-P It feels like you've moved to the LLVM clan ? If that's the case are you planning to fix the llvm cmake libs to include the version number in the filename (just like the autotools one) ? Cheers, Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
