WDA PartIO project admin?

[redpawFX]

I have recently  realized that   Andrew Selle may not be working at  Disney any longer, and he was my original contact for  Partio back when i started working on my  Partio4Maya  tools  and  other contrib projects.

I'm wondering who now is  "in charge"  of  PartIO  now  and  who to ask  some questions about further  main  major  API refactor/changes.

I've got a couple of other developers I've been working with  who  we've been discussing some bigger picture things that I'd like to get some feedback on where  WDAS   stands on  further development
of  the Partio Library.    These would be fairly big API changes and refactors that we'd like  to pull request  once done and  get added.    

Please let me know

thanks!

-John Cassella
redpawfx

[Andrew Selle]

Yes, I'm no longer at Disney Animation anymore as I moved to Google. You might try Lawrence Chai.

-A

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "partio-discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to partio-discuss+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[David Aguilar]

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:23 PM, redpawFX <redp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi John,

This list is still the right place for these discussions.  I'll ask around internally and get a few names to you if you'd like to ask us further questions off-list.

Thanks again for all your partio contributions.  Making a better effort at merging in open source contributions is an area we're definitely looking to improve in the new year.

Improving our use of available CI systems is probably one low-hanging fruit that can help us get there.  In the very least, we should use something like Travis to validate our Linux builds, and probably something like Appveyor(?) for validating Windows. I specifically mention Windows because that's not our main platform, so having CI in place will help ensure that we don't break existing portability and cross-platform work that has been done towards better Windows support.

--

David

[Pál Mezei]

I took a quick stab at the travis setup here : https://github.com/sirpalee/partio/tree/travis .

Strangely the c++11 flags are missing from cmake in the master branch, yet one of the files are using unique_ptrs.

David, how do you feel about modernizing the cmake setup and going for the 2018 VFX standard. (since both the merging in and the codebase modernization will happen next year anyway)

[David Aguilar]

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Pál Mezei <sirp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I took a quick stab at the travis setup here : https://github.com/sirpalee/partio/tree/travis .
>
> Strangely the c++11 flags are missing from cmake in the master branch, yet one of the files are using unique_ptrs.
>
> David, how do you feel about modernizing the cmake setup and going for the 2018 VFX standard. (since both the merging in and the codebase modernization will happen next year anyway)

Thanks, that sounds like a good thing to do.

Regarding the C++11 settings, CMakelists.txt has this line, which may
explain why those worked:

add_compile_options(-std=c++11)

We should already be on C++11 so if there are missing flags it's
probably an oversight. Nonetheless, we should make it easier to
opt-in to newer (C++14) configurations rather than having it
hard-coded.

Making it opt-in allows someone stuck using an older setup to still
build the latest (vfx2018+) code using their C++11 compilers. This
implies that we should at least try to maintain C++11 source-level
compatibility for now since those constructs should be
forwards-compatible to newer standards.

We can use #defines to swap-in use of newer features as needed.
Partio is pretty simple so this shouldn't be a big concern. Most of
the code is already on C++11 so for the most part it's just a matter
of making it easier to adjust the compiler flags for newer standards.
--
David