On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 12:09:02PM -0600, C.J. Beyer wrote:
(Forwarded from Steve Baker, I think)
|
| > However, I'd really like to here responces to this comment:
| >
| > "Based on discussions with some of the active Mesa developers,
| > there's a reasonable chance of merging the two together
| > into a single reference implementation and driver kit over time."
|
| Someone at SGI once told me that there had been discussions about dumping
| SGI's reference implementation in favor of Mesa ...
Precision Insight and SGI have been talking about unifying the OpenGL
codebase for some time. Don't know if those are the discussions you
had in mind.
The reasons for unifying the codebase are obvious; the reasons for
*not* doing so just yet are covered pretty well in the new FAQ.
(Briefly: Licensing compatibility still needs to be worked out; and
Mesa can deliver hardware support and driver optimizations that the SI
(Sample Implementation) can't yet because of intellectual property
concerns and code development schedules.)
| The big favor I'd like to ask of SGI is whether they'd release the
| compliance suite for public use ...
|
| I appreciate that there is already a partial freeware "test"
| suite (GLEAN), it's still FAR from being a comprehensive test
| harness.
I think making the conformance test suite available would be great.
However, it wouldn't solve the problem of guaranteeing that OpenGL (or
Mesa) implementations are stable, consistent with previous releases,
or perform well. Hardware vendors have separate test suites for those
purposes, and I imagined that glean would be the open-source
equivalent of those private suites.
I'm beginning to get contributions for glean now, and certainly would
appreciate more. That's what it'll take to have a first-rate quality
assurance tool for the open-source world.
http://glean.sourceforge.net/
Allen
_______________________________________________
Mesa-dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.mesa3d.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
