core is fine for now. Goal is to have an established automated process to build an arbitrary version of rebolin a Docker container. (which only suppotrs recent 64b kernels) A fixed link to the current 64b linux binary at www.rebolsource.net would help something like a symlink from r3-g25033f8 to r3-latest (asuming the -g25033f8 part changes and becomes unavailable after a while)
I think it would be nice to have a link that is easy to type as usually you have to use wget to download rebol.
I had about the same question as Maxim regarding keeping R3 source in sync between repositories. Carl open sourced R3, Saphirion brought the UI and other improvements, Atronix works on Linux. and I just wish we could consolidate all those contributions. Anyone has an insight on this?
Needs one or more people dedicated to doing the consolidation.
At least most of the stuff is now out in the open, so anyone technically able and willing to do it, _can_ do it. But I know that doesn't help those who can't do it on their own and are (rightly) frustrated by the perceived fragmentation.
However, note that there is quite a bit of consolidation going on. Many contributions are pending as pull requests against the "mainline" repostiroy. And both Atronix and Saphirion have integrated most of the contributions into their repositories.
It is great it is now open sourced and I think it also takes time for a community to build and organize around. For example when Blender went open source it took times to get some/enough people involved. My concern about fragmentation is mostly about getting the same behavior on all plateforms.
I agree things are on a good track though.
> My concern about fragmentation is mostly about > getting the same behavior on all plateforms.
A concern I can very much understand and sympathise with. Ultimately, I think this needs one or more "champions" for each platform who are willing to actively involve themselves.
Is there any existing documentation around R3 implementation that would help any beginner to jump in?
Also, what's your opinion on using SDL2.0 as a R3 host ?
SDL 2 would be a good backend to add
It would be a good backend but at the same time I wonder if it is not too much. SDL2 handles video, events, files, timer, keybaord, mouse, simple drawing, ... and R3 does many of this already. Mostly the compositor is what we miss.
IIRC Robert had some interest to use SDL2 as replacement of some of the host parts. But I think this is not small project. GregP, you have good point about the SDL based compositor. That could be interesting to try, but IMO it wouldn't improve the 2d vector graphics cpu performance it that's what you are after. Also I haven't researched if the SDL is modular enough so you can use only specific parts of the framework to have small footprint.
I agree it is not a small project and I would not be alone on this. The main motivation to use SDL would be to port the host to some other OSes like Mac. Also, SDL is pretty well supported since version 2.0, that's another plus.
GregP, make sure you check out your private chat
Since we have R3 "view" on Win and Linux I'd personally like to find some time to finisih porting R3 "view" to Mac...there is only relatively small part missing so it should be much easier than doing the full SDL port.
-- Since we have R3 "view" on Win and Linux I'd personally like to find some time to finisih porting R3 "view" to Mac --
sounds much better than opening another SDL bottle, what do you need to find this time or increases your motivation,.money?