[Radiance-general] HEAD version?

[Guglielmetti, Robert]

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" <tbleicher at googlemail.com> 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outdated bits of software)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
>Radiance-general at radiance-online.org
>http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general