[Mesa-dev] [PATCH 1/2] glsl: enable 'shared' keyword also for layout qualifiers

[Emil Velikov]

On 13 November 2015 at 09:14, Kai Wasserbäch <kai at 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
>> <siglesias at igalia.com> wrote:
>>> On 12/11/15 15:28, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>>>> On 13 November 2015 12:22:39 am AEDT, "Samuel Iglesias Gonsálvez" <siglesias at 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