|
Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to my involvement there have been a number of commits to master since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
|
|
|
Hey guys, I'd love to join the Slack channel (provided our corporate proxy will let me use slack :/ ) I'm really pleased to see forward momentum, both in terms of discussions and development. Thanks!
Zach
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:31:50 PM UTC-4, Sean Cooper wrote: Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to my involvement there have been a number of commits to master since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
|
|
|
I'd really like to see
https://github.com/imageworks/OpenColorIO/pull/381 or some
equivalent in the next official release.
I personally don't like closed-door development of open-source
projects, and I don't find Slack at all appealing. That said, I'm
not really a major contributor, so whatever helps keep the OCIO
project moving is great.
-miker
On 04/26/2017 10:31 AM, Sean Cooper wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards
addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we
need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and
product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the
OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you
deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to
my involvement there have been a number of commits to master
since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the
ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from
there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack
conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been
centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more
than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion
against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
|
|
|
I would be interested in joining the Slack channel (although I'd rather discussions happened "in the open" - only so discussion/decisions can be easily referenced in future. However as long as people are diligent in transcribing relevant discussions into this mailing list, or ticket comments etc, that would also be perfectly fine)
In terms of bugs I'd like fixed for a future patch version, these are the major problems we've encountered with 1.0.9, or have patched around in our internal builds:
Problems mainly in Nuke:
Build problems: (we also apply pull request #321 as it as it not part of any released version, but it is already merged in master)
Additionally, this seems pretty bad, although is not something I have personally encountered (but only because the en_AU locale we use happens to be compatible enough):
On 28 April 2017 at 01:56, Michael Root <mi...@...> wrote:
I'd really like to see
https://github.com/imageworks/OpenColorIO/pull/381 or some
equivalent in the next official release.
I personally don't like closed-door development of open-source
projects, and I don't find Slack at all appealing. That said, I'm
not really a major contributor, so whatever helps keep the OCIO
project moving is great.
-miker
On 04/26/2017 10:31 AM, Sean Cooper wrote:
Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards
addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we
need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and
product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the
OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you
deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to
my involvement there have been a number of commits to master
since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the
ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from
there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack
conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been
centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more
than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion
against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to ocio-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
|
|
|
I'm not really a part of the OCIO dev community, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but,
I agree that any discussion about design or big issues of implementation really should happen on the archived, fully public mail list. The asynchronous, think and compose before you write, nature of email actually is an important feature.
Slack or other chat seems good for ephemeral, realtime collaboration, "how do I fix this, I need it in an hour", or a quick question/answer that need not be archived. Slack history may be searchable, but it seems to me that it's mainly geared toward conversations that are ok to be missed by people who happen not to be logged in at the time that they happen. It strikes me as the equivalent of an office hallway conversation -- very important to the daily life of a project, but not where any big decisions should be made.
On Apr 28, 2017, at 3:36 AM, DBR - Ben < dbr....@...> wrote:
I would be interested in joining the Slack channel (although I'd rather discussions happened "in the open" - only so discussion/decisions can be easily referenced in future. However as long as people are diligent in transcribing relevant discussions into this mailing list, or ticket comments etc, that would also be perfectly fine)
In terms of bugs I'd like fixed for a future patch version, these are the major problems we've encountered with 1.0.9, or have patched around in our internal builds:
Problems mainly in Nuke:
Build problems: (we also apply pull request #321 as it as it not part of any released version, but it is already merged in master)
Additionally, this seems pretty bad, although is not something I have personally encountered (but only because the en_AU locale we use happens to be compatible enough):
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenColorIO Developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ocio-dev+u...@....
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
|
|
|
Hi Sean, I'd love an invite to the Slack conversation, please.
Cheers, Jep
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-7, Sean Cooper wrote: Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to my involvement there have been a number of commits to master since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
|
|
|
Hi Jep,
I've recently added you, let me know if you don't get the email.
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:49 PM, <jep...@...> wrote: Hi Sean, I'd love an invite to the Slack conversation, please.
Cheers, Jep On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 10:31:50 AM UTC-7, Sean Cooper wrote: Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to my involvement there have been a number of commits to master since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
|
|
|
For those that haven't been following, there have been some steps towards 1.0.10 - Sean - negative value clamp
- Sean - bump website to 1.0.9 documentation
- KevinJW - fix for extrapolation errors
- KevinJW - fix for Houdini LUT creation
- Sean - Update README w/ reference to ACES configs
- DBR - minor doc updates
- DBR - Travis CI integration
- Sean w/ Jerome - Appveyor CI + Windows QOL improvements
- Additional documentation updates including the ACES config readme on the public website (coming soon)
Feature requests such as #381 should perhaps be grouped into an update for a 1.1.0 release rather than these which were very much "patch-like" in nature. If anyone is able to do further testing on the current Master branch, or suggest additional "simple" patches that could be looped into 1.0.10 please let me know.
On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 10:31:50 UTC-7, Sean Cooper wrote: Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to my involvement there have been a number of commits to master since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
|
|
|
Correction, this would be the example (unorganized) changelog
- Fix build when using libc++
- Added support for yaml-cpp > 5.0.1
- Fix YAML/TinyXML patches for GCC < 4.2
- Updated Truelight support for writing
- Fixed free memory access in YAML
- Fixed LUT files with Windows-style endings
- Fixed MacOS string corruption in Python
- Add support for parsing CDL XML files
- Fix GPU shader Log bug
- Add args/kwargs support to Python
- Add description field to Look objects
- Improved Python 3 compatibility
- fix CSP file read
- negative value clamp
- bump website to 1.0.9 documentation
- fix for extrapolation errors
- Fix for Houdini LUT creation
- Update documentation
- Travis CI integration
- Appveyor CI + Windows QOL improvements
1.0.9 was tagged back in October 2013, so these are the lump changes since then, there is a good amount of progress that would be useful to push forward.
On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 10:31:50 UTC-7, Sean Cooper wrote: Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to my involvement there have been a number of commits to master since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
|
|
|
Hi all, Patrick Hodoul has just pushed a number of Windows build related fixes as PR #464 . If any of you have free time to look at his commits and perhaps more importantly to test the build process in your Windows environment it would be much appreciated. Thanks!
On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 10:31:50 UTC-7, Sean Cooper wrote: Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to my involvement there have been a number of commits to master since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
|
|
|
Patrick Hodoul <patric...@...>
Hi Sean,
What is the status for 1.0.10?
Thanks.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 9:29:12 PM UTC-4, Sean Cooper wrote: Hi all, Patrick Hodoul has just pushed a number of Windows build related fixes as PR #464 . If any of you have free time to look at his commits and perhaps more importantly to test the build process in your Windows environment it would be much appreciated. Thanks! On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 10:31:50 UTC-7, Sean Cooper wrote: Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to my involvement there have been a number of commits to master since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
|
|
|
Jeremie Gerhardt <jeremie....@...>
hi all,
I like to join the Slack conversation as well.
Thank you,
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 1:31:50 PM UTC-4, Sean Cooper wrote: Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to my involvement there have been a number of commits to master since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
|
|
|
Happy New Year everyone!
After some time we finally have some good news. With the help of our lovely contributors over many years, we have just set up the Release Candidate branch for OCIO 1.1.0 here.
Some notes to carry over from the various Slack channel conversations. Between Larry, Patrick and myself we have decided to adopt the OIIO method of maintaining release branches for a given Major+Minor release version. This will allow for continued maintenance of the given release without holding back active development on Master.
Why 1.1.0 instead of 1.0.10? After a bit of deliberation, it seemed more appropriate to assign this a Minor version for a few reasons. First and foremost, its been almost 5 years since the last release and a good amount of changes have accumulated over that time. Additionally, there are backward compatible API changes which require a Minor version change based on SemVer 2.0. Lastly, it allows for a clean beginning to the release branch structure.
I will create another post specific to the 1.1.0 Release Candidate, so please carry your comments and concerns to that thread.
Thanks everyone, SC
On Wednesday, 26 April 2017 18:31:50 UTC+1, Sean Cooper wrote: Hello all,
With a little bit of movement on the OCIO repo working towards addressing the most egregious image-quality-effecting bugs, we need to look to locking off to a 1.0.10 to help our users, and product partners.
If you haven't been watching, I invite you to take a look at the OCIO repo, and point out other image quality *bugs* that you deem a requirement for the next minor version. Prior to my involvement there have been a number of commits to master since 1.0.9, and I think it's beneficial to put a stake in the ground as a firm mark of rejuvenation. We can proceed from there.
If you haven't joined in the side Slack conversation where more day-to-day conversation has been centered, please reply below or message me personally I am more than happy to invite you. Or if you have a strong opinion against the "closed-door" conversation, I am open ears.
Thoughts, and opinions welcomed, thanks!
Sean
|
|
|
