[Bf-cycles] Cycles releases

[Mohamed Sakr]

Hi,

a great topic.
I would suggest developing Cycles alone with its own branches, and merging
this into Blender.
this will help in the future to Cycles Standalone, also porting it will be
steady as Cycles will be the main pivot, at moment Blender is the main
pivot.
about versions, as DingTo said: 0.1 per Blender release sounds reasonable
"assuming blender goes 10 releases every about 20 months (if I'm not
wrong), this makes a good version step".
version 1.0 looks young too, Cycles is production ready from long ago,
though it got many parts that needs pushing, but the stable parts are
already proven for production.

cheers,
Mohamed Sakr

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Thomas Dinges <blender at dingto.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> that is an interesting topic.
>
> My opinion here is, that we should have our own independent release
> schedule and version scheme for Cycles.
> I might be wrong, but it already happened, that we didn't really add new
> stuff to Cycles for a bit and focused on other Blender related things. Why
> wait for Blender to do a RC / Release, if we feel that the Cycles side is
> stable already and justifies a new release?
>
> I would basically go with your suggestion of "Have release branches" but
> stay independent of Blender here. In other words, we can create a branch at
> the same time Blender or do it in between at any other time, if we feel
> like it.
>
> As for the versioning scheme, I always imagined it like taking a 0.1 step
> per Blender release.
> Blender 2.61 = Cycles 0.1
> Blender 2.71 = Cycles 1.1
> Blender 2.77 = Cycles 1.7
>
> Anyway I would be fine either way, whether the first Cycles release will
> be 1.0 or e.g. 1.7, even though I think that 1.0 sounds a bit too young,
> the engine is certainly beyond that. :)
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas
>
>
>
> Am 28.03.2016 um 19:10 schrieb Sergey Sharybin:
>
> Hey,
>
> = Preamble =
>
> Some time ago we had IRC discussion with Nathan about tagging Cycles's
> repository once Blender gets a new release. At that time as i understood
> main reasoning was to make it real clear which revisions of Cycles
> repository are considered stable and which could cause you a troubles due
> to WIP features.
>
> = Issues =
>
> While it's all legit idea and something we should definitely have, it's a
> bit more tricky in implementation since the following reasons:
>
> 1. Code freeze periods
> 2. Need tag name convention
>
> First issue is coming from the fact that in Blender we're doing a release
> branch at the RC time. There's no new features committed to that branch
> (only bug fixes), but non-intrusive work continues on master branch after
> Blender RC1 is out.
>
> In Cycles we've got a single branch, which with current situation will
> mean we wouldn't be able to synchronize any of the new code from Blender to
> Cycles during the RC period of Blender (which could be 3-4 weeks easily).
> That's something to be avoid in fact.
>
> Second issue is more a convention. We would just need to agree on version
> system. I just don't feel like using Blender's versions for Cycles -- while
> releases can totally be synchronized, to me it makes more sense to have own
> versions for Cycles.
>
> = Ideas =
>
> Looking on all that here are couple of ideas how we can move forward.
>
> == New branch: devel ==
>
> The idea is simple: we move all on-going development in Cycles's
> standalone repository to a new branch called `devel`. Technically it'll
> mean we'll synchronize commits from Blender NOT to master but to devel
> branch.
>
> Once Blender is released we'll fast-forward devel branch to master.
>
> As simple as that. That would solve requirement of distinguishing stable
> Cycles from ongoing development one. Additionally, we'll be able to tag
> master branch with annotated release tags. Read about that in next ideas.
>
> == Have release branches ==
>
> Other idea is to follow Blender's release process and keep all development
> happening in Cycles standalone in the master branch and once Blender get's
> RC branch we create same thing in Cycles. All crucial bugfixes will be
> cherry-picked to that branch and when blender releases we'll tag the branch
> in standalone repository and delete the branch (so we'll leave with just
> tags).
>
> == Tagging / versions ==
>
> Here i propose to consider first tag 1.0, and next releases will be 1.1,
> 1.2 ... and so on, for until we do some major re-consideration in Cycles
> (going bi-dir?) which would start 2.0 version.
>
> I personal opinion that'd be natural for external users / developers of
> Cycles.
>
> = Comments? +
>
> Now, i'm wondering what other both Cycles core developers and external
> developers who integrates Cycles in other software think of how we should
> process. Maybe i'm all wrong, thinking too much or maybe you guys will like
> one of the ideas here.
>
> Let's have a bit of communication/discussion here before changing the way
> we operate with standalone Cycles repo!
>
> P.S. Sorry for the lengthy mail..
>
> --
> With best regards, Sergey Sharybin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-cycles mailing listBf-cycles at blender.orghttp://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-cycles mailing list
> Bf-cycles at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-cycles
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-cycles/attachments/20160328/619dbec2/attachment.htm