On Sep 10, 2016 4:42 PM, "Alejandro Piñeiro" <<a href="mailto:apinheiro@igalia.com">apinheiro@igalia.com</a>> wrote: > > > On 10/09/16 15:39, Marek Olšák wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 2:41 PM, Alejandro Piñeiro <<a href="mailto:apinheiro@igalia.com">apinheiro@igalia.com</a>> wrote: > >> On 09/09/16 15:10, Marek Olšák wrote: > >>> From: Marek Olšák <<a href="mailto:marek.olsak@amd.com">marek.olsak@amd.com</a>> > >>> > >>> Older versions don't work and there is no interest in fixing the official > >> > >> Could you elaborate that older versions doesn't work? We are right now > >> focusing on gl44, and except some local patches that we needed to add in > >> order to get some tests working, it is going fine. Although perhaps you > >> are talking about the need to patch CTS to get those 44 tests working ... > > > > Yeah, that's what I was talking about. It's pretty embarassing having > > to apply 100 patches to non-conformant CTS just to make it work and be > > conformant. > > > > Ok, I understand now. > > > The idea is that, for most people, there is no practical reason to > > have gl44 CTS support in piglit if the official branch remains broken > > forever. > > But for some people, like us, applying those patches are the only > solution, because we only have access to the tarball (that I assume that > is a tarball of the official branch). > > Having said so, a) probably we are the exception and not the rule b) > there is no much difference between running gl44 and gl45, so this > change would not affect us too much. > > > Having a separate piglit profile just for gl44 (so that > > everybody else can ignore it) would be OK though. > > Something like a cts_gl44.py? Yes. Marek