[Bf-cycles] Cycles Standalone
ton at blender.org
Thu Aug 22 12:41:26 CEST 2013
It would be nothing more than appropriate to host it similar to how we do for Blender itself. We can add as many repositories as we like here. Putting Cycles in an own repo is all fine.
When Blender moves to a new versioning system this then moves similarly as well.
Needless to say - Cycles remains a blender.org project, we should manage and promote it as such as well.
Ton Roosendaal - ton at blender.org - www.blender.org
Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands
On 21 Aug, 2013, at 13:47, Brecht Van Lommel wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Matt Ebb <matt at mke3.net> wrote:
> * Would it be possible to move (or somehow mirror?) Cycles to its own repository so that people don't need to check out the entire blender tree just to get cycles? It would probably help to dispel any notions of GPL infection if the code is completely isolated and presented that way.
> We should indeed do this. I'm not sure yet where that would be hosted, but I think it would be (manually) mirrored somehow, since for Blender development it's still nice to have an actual copy of the code in the bf-blender repository. Otherwise things can get out of sync and more complicated for users to check out.
> * Having a generalised C/C++ API, that's clear and not tied to blender-isms would of course be great as well, especially for the purposes of things like live updating from a non-blender application's viewport.
> Yes, we need some work to separate Blender integration code more, it's in a separate module but could be improved. Live updating especially makes the API more complex, we have some fairly generic mechanisms for tagging partial updates but it needs to be clarified more.
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
More information about the Bf-cycles