Re: [waffle] json, approach 2, version 2

2016-06-18 Thread Frank Henigman
Perhaps I rewrote the branch after posting that link, it appears not to be on the json5 branch anymore. Though the link should still take you to original (now orphaned) commit. In any case, you and Emil answered my question. I'll assume I did the glxinfo correctly for now, and you'll see it when

Re: [waffle] json, approach 2, version 2

2016-06-14 Thread Chad Versace
On Thu 21 Apr 2016, Frank Henigman wrote: > Thanks Emil and Chad for reviewing my json series. All suggestions > implemented in v2, except where I replied inline. I'll hold off > sending in case there's more back-and-forth over the first set of > comments. Would also be nice if Chad merged his

Re: [waffle] json, approach 2, version 2

2016-06-14 Thread Chad Versace
On Thu 21 Apr 2016, Frank Henigman wrote: > Thanks Emil and Chad for reviewing my json series. All suggestions > implemented in v2, except where I replied inline. I'll hold off > sending in case there's more back-and-forth over the first set of > comments. Would also be nice if Chad merged his

Re: [waffle] json, approach 2, version 2

2016-05-02 Thread Chad Versace
On Thu 21 Apr 2016, Frank Henigman wrote: [snip] > When comparing my json output to the landed json output I noticed that > the landed version omits the context flags found in the old format. > Was that deliberate? If so I'll remove it from my json. The JSON should list the context flags. It's

Re: [waffle] json, approach 2, version 2

2016-04-26 Thread Emil Velikov
On 21 April 2016 at 21:27, Frank Henigman wrote: > Thanks Emil and Chad for reviewing my json series. All suggestions > implemented in v2, except where I replied inline. I'll hold off > sending in case there's more back-and-forth over the first set of > comments. > Would