[Bf-committers] Revisions for the 2.70a release
Hey, Still don't really think doing 2.71 a correction release is a good idea, too much quite WIP things in the code atm anyway. So thinking of rather doing 'a' release. Here's the page with the revisions which i consider to be back ported to the 'a' release: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Release_Notes/2.70/Bug_Fixes#Fixes_since_2.70_release Please don't modify it directly, rather poke me to add/remove stuff in there. -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] Processors Requirements for CYCLES
Hello, due the try to build blender-2.70 on the Fedora build seerver, I have to find out that the CYCLES features used compilter flags (relating to SSE) which was not supported by ghe gcc compilter running on the armv7hl architecture. After I have disabled CYCLES on none-intel processors this issues was gone. So I want to ask, wich processors requirement are needed to use the CYCLES feature in blender for clarification. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revisions for the 2.70a release
Hi everyone, About the back-porting of patches. Is there a good reason we do not have a '2.70-stable' branch on which we can back-port all these. Now that we have git i think that is would not cost us much and that we stand much to gain from implementing this. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Sharybin sergey@gmail.comwrote: Hey, Still don't really think doing 2.71 a correction release is a good idea, too much quite WIP things in the code atm anyway. So thinking of rather doing 'a' release. Here's the page with the revisions which i consider to be back ported to the 'a' release: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Release_Notes/2.70/Bug_Fixes#Fixes_since_2.70_release Please don't modify it directly, rather poke me to add/remove stuff in there. -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revisions for the 2.70a release
We've got an annotated tag which isn't really different from the branch you're suggesting to have. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Martijn Berger martijn.ber...@gmail.comwrote: Hi everyone, About the back-porting of patches. Is there a good reason we do not have a '2.70-stable' branch on which we can back-port all these. Now that we have git i think that is would not cost us much and that we stand much to gain from implementing this. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Sharybin sergey@gmail.com wrote: Hey, Still don't really think doing 2.71 a correction release is a good idea, too much quite WIP things in the code atm anyway. So thinking of rather doing 'a' release. Here's the page with the revisions which i consider to be back ported to the 'a' release: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Release_Notes/2.70/Bug_Fixes#Fixes_since_2.70_release Please don't modify it directly, rather poke me to add/remove stuff in there. -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revisions for the 2.70a release
Hi Sergey, I am no expert by my understanding has always been that a tag is meant to refer to a commit. And that a branch is somehow different from this and is more like a line of commits. Is it possible to make test-builds of 2.70(a) as it is no envisioned or does it only exist in the form of the wiki page that holds a list of candidates to be back-ported ? It might be a semantic discussion but I would like to just be able to checkout 2.70 + all fixes and make a test build of it. And in the future maybe even do back-porting of fixes even if mainline has moved on. thx for your patience in explaining all this. Martijn On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Sergey Sharybin sergey@gmail.comwrote: We've got an annotated tag which isn't really different from the branch you're suggesting to have. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Martijn Berger martijn.ber...@gmail.comwrote: Hi everyone, About the back-porting of patches. Is there a good reason we do not have a '2.70-stable' branch on which we can back-port all these. Now that we have git i think that is would not cost us much and that we stand much to gain from implementing this. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Sharybin sergey@gmail.com wrote: Hey, Still don't really think doing 2.71 a correction release is a good idea, too much quite WIP things in the code atm anyway. So thinking of rather doing 'a' release. Here's the page with the revisions which i consider to be back ported to the 'a' release: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Release_Notes/2.70/Bug_Fixes#Fixes_since_2.70_release Please don't modify it directly, rather poke me to add/remove stuff in there. -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Processors Requirements for CYCLES
Hi, Blender and Cycles should also compile on non x86 computers. Please attach the full error log , compiler version, system info. Thanks. Best regards, Thomas Am 25.03.2014 17:30, schrieb Jochen Schmitt: Hello, due the try to build blender-2.70 on the Fedora build seerver, I have to find out that the CYCLES features used compilter flags (relating to SSE) which was not supported by ghe gcc compilter running on the armv7hl architecture. After I have disabled CYCLES on none-intel processors this issues was gone. So I want to ask, wich processors requirement are needed to use the CYCLES feature in blender for clarification. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revisions for the 2.70a release
You can create a branch based on the tag. And we never did testbuilds of 'a' releases anyway. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Martijn Berger martijn.ber...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Sergey, I am no expert by my understanding has always been that a tag is meant to refer to a commit. And that a branch is somehow different from this and is more like a line of commits. Is it possible to make test-builds of 2.70(a) as it is no envisioned or does it only exist in the form of the wiki page that holds a list of candidates to be back-ported ? It might be a semantic discussion but I would like to just be able to checkout 2.70 + all fixes and make a test build of it. And in the future maybe even do back-porting of fixes even if mainline has moved on. thx for your patience in explaining all this. Martijn On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Sergey Sharybin sergey@gmail.com wrote: We've got an annotated tag which isn't really different from the branch you're suggesting to have. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Martijn Berger martijn.ber...@gmail.comwrote: Hi everyone, About the back-porting of patches. Is there a good reason we do not have a '2.70-stable' branch on which we can back-port all these. Now that we have git i think that is would not cost us much and that we stand much to gain from implementing this. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Sergey Sharybin sergey@gmail.com wrote: Hey, Still don't really think doing 2.71 a correction release is a good idea, too much quite WIP things in the code atm anyway. So thinking of rather doing 'a' release. Here's the page with the revisions which i consider to be back ported to the 'a' release: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Release_Notes/2.70/Bug_Fixes#Fixes_since_2.70_release Please don't modify it directly, rather poke me to add/remove stuff in there. -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revisions for the 2.70a release
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Sergey Sharybin sergey@gmail.comwrote: You can create a branch based on the tag. And we never did testbuilds of 'a' releases anyway. Since we're talking about branches and tags... I noticed that if you do make a branch (or just checkout the tag) and then try to build with CMake git complains about the branch having no upstream or somesuch and doesn't produce a commit hash. Not that big a deal but it breaks CPack since the Release tag doesn't properly parse. Dan ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revisions for the 2.70a release
Hi Sergey, I want revision with hash: 3600622 to be added. It’s a modification to the bug fix done in revision: b7712a7 to be win/mac friendly. Greetings, Arturo. El 25/03/2014, a las 16:53, Sergey Sharybin sergey@gmail.com escribió: Hey, Still don't really think doing 2.71 a correction release is a good idea, too much quite WIP things in the code atm anyway. So thinking of rather doing 'a' release. Here's the page with the revisions which i consider to be back ported to the 'a' release: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Release_Notes/2.70/Bug_Fixes#Fixes_since_2.70_release Please don't modify it directly, rather poke me to add/remove stuff in there. -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Processors Requirements for CYCLES
@Jochen as Thomas says, we need a full error log On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de wrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 06:11:05AM +1100, Campbell Barton wrote: Could you try hand edit: intern/cycles/CMakeLists.txt (lines 43 - 47) and remove any args containing sse set(CYCLES_SSE2_KERNEL_FLAGS -ffast-math -msse -msse2 -mfpmath=sse) would become... set(CYCLES_SSE2_KERNEL_FLAGS -ffast-math) This was my first unsucessfull trial to fix the issue. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- - Campbell ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Revisions for the 2.70a release
Dan, it is expected to work and works for branches here. If you've got exact steps how to reproduce the issue please report a bug. Arturo, i'll add it next time i review upcoming pile of commits. But please keep this thread clear from stuff which is NOT related on 'a' release. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Arturo J. Perez arturjo...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Sergey, I want revision with hash: 3600622 to be added. It's a modification to the bug fix done in revision: b7712a7 to be win/mac friendly. Greetings, Arturo. El 25/03/2014, a las 16:53, Sergey Sharybin sergey@gmail.com escribió: Hey, Still don't really think doing 2.71 a correction release is a good idea, too much quite WIP things in the code atm anyway. So thinking of rather doing 'a' release. Here's the page with the revisions which i consider to be back ported to the 'a' release: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Release_Notes/2.70/Bug_Fixes#Fixes_since_2.70_release Please don't modify it directly, rather poke me to add/remove stuff in there. -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- With best regards, Sergey Sharybin ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
[Bf-committers] download.blender.org maintenance
Hey, Just a heads up that the download server (where releases are hosted) we be going down for maintenance in a bit. Should be down for a few hours. Dan ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
Re: [Bf-committers] Processors Requirements for CYCLES
From looking at the errors its just a matter of not using an SSE include (somehow __KERNEL_SSE2__ is defined and it attempts to include xmmintrin.h) This should be fairly trivial to solve, I've got Cycles building on an Fedora/ARM so I can probably fix this in the next couple of days if nobody else gets to it first. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 06:20:26PM +0100, Thomas Dinges wrote: Please attach the full error log , compiler version, system info. Thanks. Above are two koji builds [1] [2} for further analysis. In the second build I have tried to remove the complainted compilter flags from the intern/cycles/CMakeList.txt file via a patch. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6659720 [2} http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6668617 ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- - Campbell ___ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
