On 12/18/13 6:59 AM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> wrote:
>>"Another possibility is that we leave the PBK's where they are and >>simply add new build targets to flex-sdk build script. That might be >>simpler and gives us the option of reverting back to a single package >>if we find that we can someday." > >> Yeah. So what are your thoughts now? > >- given that the PBK didn't change for years, and will probably never >change, >- given the "Jenkins running as a service" requirement, and that I don't >see how it could be solved, apart from rewriting the compiler so that I >does not need access to the gpu. I had a meeting with the engineer who wrote most of the PB compiler. He says that the PBK to PBJ pipeline shouldn't have dependencies on the gnu, but other PBK to XXX pipelines do, so it should be possible to modify the compiler and get rid of the window dependency. > >I would think that we will never need/have to revert back to the single >package. > >My impression is that we should consider this PBK/PBJ as a sort of " >frozen legacy stuff", and handle them in a completely separate package, >if that makes the build process simpler and clearer. Well, I am making it a separate package. The question is whether you think we should also move this code out of the flex-sdk repo. > >This is really just an impression, and some "common sense". > >> I've been trying to get a look at the pixel bender compiler source to >>determine if it is worth donating to Apache Flex. >> If we could get enough stuff to have control of the compiler would we >>write a Linux version and then go back to a single package? > >That is a possibility, but it's a lot of work. >So given the reasons above, is it worth the effort? Another thing to consider: What if the PB compiler stops working on Windows or Mac someday due to an OS incompatibility? When we don't own the tools and the tools are not under active development, we run a risk. Who knows when Adobe would respond. I think PB compiler was last shipped in Creative Suite 5.5. We could also simply move away from PBK as folks eventually move away from FP 10.x. I've been told that Alchemy shaders will outperform PB shaders in the more recent players. Also, I'm not sure how much work it really is. The compiler code base is large, but the portion we need is not so large, and we might just try to work from a grammar spec and byte code spec and get Falcon to do it. We need to think through whether we want to support PB "forever". > >Regards, > >Maurice > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >Envoyé : mercredi 18 décembre 2013 15:37 >À : dev@flex.apache.org >Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0 >(RC2) > > > >On 12/17/13 11:45 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> >wrote: > >>>Well, re-read the end of that thread and let me know where you stand. >> >>Alex wrote: >>"Another possibility is that we leave the PBK's where they are and >>simply add new build targets to flex-sdk build script. That might be >>simpler and gives us the option of reverting back to a single package >>if we find that we can someday." >> >>is this the point you are talking about ? >Yeah. So what are your thoughts now? I've been trying to get a look at >the pixel bender compiler source to determine if it is worth donating to >Apache Flex. If we could get enough stuff to have control of the >compiler would we write a Linux version and then go back to a single >package? >> >>Maurice >> >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mercredi 18 décembre >>2013 00:48 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss >>Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0 >>(RC2) >> >> >> >>On 12/17/13 3:35 PM, "Maurice Amsellem" <maurice.amsel...@systar.com> >>wrote: >> >>>> The goal was to not move the PBK files out to a different repo and >>>> instead, package a subset of the flex-sdk repo. >>> >>>Why can't it be on a different repo ? >>It can. >>>From our early discussion on the subject (see email thread >>>"PixelBender and Builds.a.o"), I understood that PBK sources were >>>moved to a sub project in flex-utilities. >>>Which means PBK sources and any reference to pixelbender should be >>>completely removed from flex sdk. >>>Morever, the pixel-bender project in flex-utilities was supposed to >>>have its own build.xml. >>>The result of the new pixel-bender build would be manually committed >>>to dist svn repo (and voted for). >>At the end of that discussion (around December 12), you talked me out >>of putting it in a different repo. >>> >>>IMO, it would be much simpler to do it that way than "logically >>>partitioning" the flex-sdk sources and build files. >>Well, re-read the end of that thread and let me know where you stand. >> >>> >>>WDYT ? >>> >>>Maurice >>> >>>-----Message d'origine----- >>>De : Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Envoyé : mercredi >>>18 décembre 2013 00:19 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] >>>Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0 >>>(RC2) >>> >>>Hi, >>> >>>> OK. Good point about the overlay of the notice files. I'll add an >>>> ant target to copy just the pbk/pbj. >>>That would be required for the CI anyway wouldn't it? >>> >>>> The goal was to not move the PBK files out to a different repo and >>>> instead, package a subset of the flex-sdk repo. >>>Can we actually do that ie does it follow Apache release guidelines? >>>I'm not sure. Does that mean we also need to vote on a release a >>>version of pixel bender when making a new SDK release? >>> >>>> Do you think everything on this list is required? >>>Not everything, It is expected that someone can take the source >>>release and compile it and verify it to what's in version control. >>> >>>> 1) can we tell folks in the RELEASE_NOTES not to run >>>> release-pixelbender target and say that it is for extracting this >>>> package from a full flex-sdk repo? >>>We can say what we want in RELEASE_NOTE/README. But it seem odd to me >>>that you need the full Flex SDK is required just to make a release of >>>pixel bender. What do other people think? >>> >>>> 2) can we say that the LICENSE file contains extra licenses that may >>>> only apply to the full repo? >>>I would assume that LICENSE/NOTICE file needs to refer to the actual >>>release (and any upstream projects) they are in not any downstream >>>projects. The Apache licence make reference to the NOTICE file so we >>>would need to legally comply with that. >>> >>>> 3) can we say that the build.xml and properties files reference the >>>> full flex-sdk build? >>>Does this mean we need to make a new PB release every time they change? >>> >>>> 4) can we say that the clean target doesn't work? >>>I think it would be expected that it should work. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Justin >> >
