[Mesa-dev] [PATCH mesa 0/7] remove upstreamed specs

[Eric Engestrom]

On Wednesday, 2017-11-22 12:28:17 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen at intel.com> writes:
> 
> > On 2017-11-22 09:59:34, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> >> A recent thread [1] made me check our local specs to see which ones were
> >> upstream. This series removes the ones that are identical upstream
> >> (modulo "TBD" extension numbers in some cases).
> >
> > While I don't have too strong of an opinion on it, I think we should
> > keep a copy of Mesa specs that are in the upstream registry.
> >
> > I think it makes sense to send a patch to mesa-dev for new Mesa specs
> > or changes to Mesa specs. Having a copy in docs/specs works well for
> > that.
> 
> The downside is that that process means that we'll inevitably keep stale
> or divergent copies in Mesa, when the canonical location for GL specs is
> Khronos.  We do have a reasonable process for modifying Khronos's specs
> now, which we didn't before.

Exactly, our local copies are not the authority, Khronos is.

Changes to specs should be sent to Khronos, on the relevant repo, by
creating a pull request like I've now done for the specs I mentioned
in the cover letter:
https://github.com/KhronosGroup/EGL-Registry/pull/36
https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/132
https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/133
https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/134
https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/135
https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/136
https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/pull/137

> 
> I think we should get all our specs out and into the Khronos.

Ack; should I let the specs authors do this themselves, or push them for
them?