Hi Emil, Emil Velikov wrote on 13.11.2015 13:58: > On 13 November 2015 at 09:14, Kai Wasserbäch <k...@dev.carbon-project.org> > wrote: >> 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.
sure, there'll always be some level of interaction. My point was, that Phabricator allows me in my experience with it, to reduce the amount of direct interactions with it. Example: if I put up a new revision for review, I can do so with a command line tool I use instead of a git push to some feature branch and a git send-email to the list. If code owners are defined, these can get added automatically by the system as subscribers/reviewers (Herald rules can do that too). If a change has been reviewed I land it with my command line tool which automatically marks the review correctly. If somebody has requested to do something differently I can reply to the comments inline and/or update the change for review. It all feels pretty natural. (See <https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/differential/> and <https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/arcanist_diff/> for some details on that workflow.) > 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 ? I'm most likely not going to be at any XDC in the foreseeable future, but a discussion about tools would probably best suited for a personal meeting. Anyway, if there is more interest in Phabricator or this discussion I'm happy to answer your questions off list or in a different thread. I'll stop posting in this thread, since it is off-topic (sorry for that). Especially since I'm not a major contributor to Mesa. 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
