HEAD version?

Are people mostly using the head version of Radiance for production? That's
rather my impression, but it would be nice to have some confirmation.

Randolph

Yes. =)

···

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Randolph M. Fritz <[email protected]> wrote:

Are people mostly using the head version of Radiance for production? That's
rather my impression, but it would be nice to have some confirmation.

Randolph

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

Yes here as well, and DIVA-for-Rhino is currently shipping with a Windows-compiled head version.

Alstan

···

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 23:21:20 -0500, Randolph M. Fritz <[email protected]> wrote:

Are people mostly using the head version of Radiance for production? That's
rather my impression, but it would be nice to have some confirmation.

Randolph

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

Also yes, but I only update it once or twice a year.

Mark

···

On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Randolph M. Fritz wrote:

Are people mostly using the head version of Radiance for production? That's
rather my impression, but it would be nice to have some confirmation.

Randolph

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

At my former workplace:

production system: no

my private play box: usually

Reasons for not running HEAD on the production system(s):

1) new features are not required (we are happy with 3.8 and other
outdated bits of software)

2) production machines are Windows and PPC and I have no interest in
(re-)compiling the binaries on those platforms

3) my colleagues are no gurus and if bugs were introduced in HEAD they
would be helpless

I'd say that it is not uncommon for typical daylight assessments to be
done on old or very old versions of Radiance. Think of all the
applications that bundled Desktop Radiance in their distribution.

Thomas

I believe there was one bug that got squashed, definitely a few very
cool/useful tools added, since 3.8. But yes if you have non-guru Radiance
users (the fact that there *are* non-guru Radiance users says a lot about
the Radiance-based tools out there like su2rad, SPOT, DAYSIM, etc), I can
see the point of sticking with something stable.

In support of a project here at NREL, we are working on creating a build
system that will provide automated cross platform builds of the HEAD, with
a dashboard to monitor for build errors and possibly do unit tests. So on
the horizon we will be able to offer stable HEAD binaries for all
platforms. That's the goal, anyway...

- Rob

···

On 2/2/11 9:12 AM, "Thomas Bleicher" <[email protected]> wrote:

At my former workplace:

production system: no

my private play box: usually

Reasons for not running HEAD on the production system(s):

1) new features are not required (we are happy with 3.8 and other
outdated bits of software)

2) production machines are Windows and PPC and I have no interest in
(re-)compiling the binaries on those platforms

3) my colleagues are no gurus and if bugs were introduced in HEAD they
would be helpless

I'd say that it is not uncommon for typical daylight assessments to be
done on old or very old versions of Radiance. Think of all the
applications that bundled Desktop Radiance in their distribution.

Thomas

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

Same for me, everytime I hear about any important improvement, I update head, typically 2,3 times a year. Plus keeping installed some old versions for specific needs. My /opt contains usually head, stable, pmap releases.

Besides guru or not:

1) Radiance ecosystem keeps users informed on bugfixes at almost real-time, making them want to update and not wait for releases.

2) There are no pure bugfixes for a release, so it is not possible to avoid version changes anyways. That makes it little attractive to follow conservative strategies such as keeping a stable release updated only with bugfixes and wait with feature updates - the bugfixes come with updates only. And then, why wait for a release tag...

3) Binaries on my 64bit ubuntu kept surprising me, and if I have to compile myself, I cannot keep away from fresh sources :slight_smile:

···

--
Dipl.-Ing. Architect Lars O. Grobe

On Feb 2, 2011, at 15:55, Mark Stock <[email protected]> wrote:

Also yes, but I only update it once or twice a year.

Mark

On Wed, 2 Feb 2011, Randolph M. Fritz wrote:

Are people mostly using the head version of Radiance for production? That's
rather my impression, but it would be nice to have some confirmation.

Randolph

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general