search

gpuweb / gpuweb

Where the GPU for the Web work happens!
https://webgpu.io
Other
4.79k stars 317 forks source link

Build error: You used Status ED, but your Group (WEBGPU) is limited to the statuses ... #4924

Open kainino0x opened 1 day ago

kainino0x commented 1 day ago

Reported by @alan-baker

Both WebGPU and WGSL are failing both the preview builds and the TR builds with this error (example from publish-TR-webgpu):

    $ bikeshed --die-on=warning spec "spec/index.bs" "spec/index.bs.built.html" 
      WARNING: You used Status ED, but your Group (WEBGPU) is limited to the statuses CG-DRAFT, CG-FINAL, or UD.
       ✘  Did not generate, due to errors exceeding the allowed error level.

Examples:

CG-DRAFT is not appropriate (that's a Draft Report). UD (Unofficial Draft) could be appropriate for previews but not for https://gpuweb.github.io/gpuweb/.

@tidoust do you know what's happening here? I'm guessing it has something to do with the group changing status somehow, but not sure.

kainino0x commented 1 day ago

I wasn't able to reproduce this locally even after updating bikeshed and its database, but suddenly it started reproducing.

The warning goes away if I set the group to gpuwg (PR: #4925). That group is the one used in publish-TR-*. Is that appropriate? It changes the "Status of this document" section from:

This specification was published by the GPU for the Web Community Group. It is not a W3C Standard nor is it on the W3C Standards Track. Please note that under the W3C Community Contributor License Agreement (CLA) there is a limited opt-out and other conditions apply. Learn more about W3C Community and Business Groups.

to:

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at https://www.w3.org/TR/.

Feedback and comments on this specification are welcome. GitHub Issues are preferred for discussion on this specification. Alternatively, you can send comments to the GPU for the Web Working Group’s mailing-list, public-gpu@w3.org (archives). This draft highlights some of the pending issues that are still to be discussed in the working group. No decision has been taken on the outcome of these issues including whether they are valid.

This document was published by the GPU for the Web Working Group as an Editor’s Draft. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation.

This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

This document was produced by a group operating under the W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

This document is governed by the 03 November 2023 W3C Process Document.

tidoust commented 1 day ago

I suspect Bikeshed has become more picky about what statuses a group may use starting with version v4.2.0.

In practice, you have two choices, depending on what you want the spec published at https://gpuweb.github.io/gpuweb/ to say:

  1. To make it a GPU for the Web CG draft, then you need to use CG-DRAFT. That would be the correct status. Apparently, there's no longer any way to say that the document is an Editor's Draft of a CG Draft. You can just say it's a CG Draft.
  2. To make it a GPU for the Web WG draft, then you indeed need to switch the group to gpuwg, as done in #4925

Both are "correct". That's up to you. The only implication I see is that the published spec at https://www.w3.org/TR/webgpu/ has a link back to the "Editor's Draft", so one could expect an "Editor's Draft" and wonder why they end up on something that says "I'm a CG Draft'. Now, practically speaking, an Editor's Draft has no standing whatsoever from a W3C perspective, so for all I know its actual status could be "Super Duper Series of Words" (or CG Draft).

kainino0x commented 1 day ago

Thank you! @Kangz @kdashg do you think it's OK to change the draft specs from CG drafts to WG drafts?