S o just follow up after discussion in private IM with Martijn.
There is no real urge to change anything in master in this context. So
better just to leave things as is for now. Saves frustration of folks who
will start getting compilation error and will save our time looking into
those issues.
W
This cost is a one time thing we will incur anyway.
Users should not really experience anything except maybe having blenders
choices line up with the python official version better.
The main benefit it having one environment in which to build 2.8 and if we
ever have to do a 2.7 we can do it in th
So is it all for the locally-compiled Blender (meaning, both releases and
buildbots stays the same as is)?
Keep in mind, while it might be fine on Windows/OSX you'll have some major
problems on Linux (users will lat least need to re-compile all
dependencies). And sure enough they'll run into weird
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Mike Erwin
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Martijn Berger
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The only mayor downside i see is that we would effectively drop OS X 10.8
> > and earlier.
> >
>
> Eek, dropping 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8 was not on our Blender 2.7x roadmap. This
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Martijn Berger
wrote:
>
>
> The only mayor downside i see is that we would effectively drop OS X 10.8
> and earlier.
>
Eek, dropping 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8 was not on our Blender 2.7x roadmap. This
would prevent 2.79 from running on lots of Macs that could handle it
Can tell you from experience: in some cases vs. boost-usage it can even
be a speed regression ;)
Should be really done carefully.
Jens
Am 20.11.2016 um 20:01 schrieb Sergey Sharybin:
> Hi,
>
> The original discussion came to conclusion that we'll switch to C++11 in
> the 2.8 branch and keep m
Hi,
The original discussion came to conclusion that we'll switch to C++11 in
the 2.8 branch and keep master as is.
What are the user-measurable improvements from such a bump in master?
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Martijn Berger
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We have had a discussion about c++1
Hi everyone,
We have had a discussion about c++11 for at least 2 years. We have decided
to allow c++11 features in 2.8, and this implies compiling in c++11 mode
with a supporting compiler. This email is not about that.
What i want to propose is to build master ( 2.7x ) in c++11 mode against
libra
