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

[Emil Velikov]

On 23 November 2017 at 16:04, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at imgtec.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 2017-11-23 13:32:47 +0000, Emil Velikov wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 22 November 2017 at 17:59, Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at imgtec.com> 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).
>> >
>> > There are a few more specs left that are upstream, but have typo fixes
>> > that I'm going to submit to Khronos, and I'll remove the local copies
>> > once the fixes have been upstreamed:
>> The idea sounds great, just some minor comments - mostly about
>> potential deprecation.
>>
>> > - EGL_MESA_drm_image
>> The extension, lacks information about error handling (et al) and is
>> no longer used.
>> There is even an extra bitmask in eglmesaext.h that's quite meh thing to do.
>> Perhaps we should consider officially deprecating it as hinted earlier [1]
>>
>> [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2017-June/161575.html
>
> What does "deprecate" mean exactly, in this context? Move to docs/specs/OLD/?
> Should anything be done in the upstream specs to flag them as deprecated?
>
There is the "obsolete" status [1] that we can use. Overall I'm thinking about:
 - Annotate the extension as Obsolete in the spec file.
 - Add printf "Warning using a deprecated extension %s. Will be
removed with Mesa version AA"
 - Clearly document ^^ as part of the release.
 - Remove the relevant code as expected.

[1] https://github.com/KhronosGroup/OpenGL-Registry/blob/master/docs/template.txt#L203


>>
>> > - GLX_MESA_release_buffers
>> Extension is implemented only for Xlib based libGL. The DRI codepath
>> has a TODO for at least 7 years.
>> Worth checking if anyone uses it and not just deprecate the extension?
>
> I don't know much about GLX, so I'll let someone else do this.
>
Ack. in the interim, can you grep your systems for any existing users?
Looking from the opposite end - quick search shows that only Mesa has
implemented the said extensions.

If there's no users and no implementation*, despite the extensions
being available for years ...

-Emil