Revert commits 0009e41..17bbad3 inclusive #210
Conversation
These commits try bumping the version up to 4.0, but they lack any kind of changelog, and most importantly, lack the sources. Yeah, that does sound funny but this is for real: author just removed sources, dumped some binaries leading to at least one major regression, and somehow all of that got through. These changes clearly haven't got any peer review and shouldn've have been applied in the first place. Let's just revert them. Fixes: GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs#206 Fixes: GPUOpen-LibrariesAndSDKs#207 Signed-off-by: Konstantin Kharlamov <[email protected]>
|
Note: the revert is squashed into a single commit. Please tell if you prefer having a separate commit for each revert, I'll modify the PR accordingly then. |
|
I'm pretty sure that this was done on purpose. |
|
Okay, well, fair enough, but let's wait a reply from an AMD employee. I also don't follow what's the purpose of these commits, given the main purpose of git is not to store binaries, and binaries themselves can be downloaded from the AMD site. It is also contradicting that the repo resides under GPUOpen umbrella, which supposed to have sources not binaries. If what you say is true, a much better and less confusing way to handle that would be to lock this whole repo at 2.0 version. |
|
Fun fact is, the website I mentioned earlier just redirects to this GitHub repo to download Radeon Rays 4.0 and to the legacy-2.0 branch to download Radeon Rays 2.0. |
|
Hi folks, Thank you for the feedback on Radeon Rays 4.0. We have reviewed this internally and will be making the following changes: AMD will make Radeon Rays 4.0 open source, however, specific AMD IP will be placed into separate modules with a source code available for the community via SLA. These pull requests will be closed. |
|
Thanks @yozhijk , sounds great. We're looking forward to it |
|
@yozhijk it's been a month, any news? |
|
@Hi-Angel open-sourcing is taking quite some time, mainly on the legal side: we have to pass some internal reviews and get approvals at several levels, but we are getting there, stay tuned... |
|
ping |
|
blender devs would love it if this stuff went open source eh?
…On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 9:37 AM Konstantin Kharlamov < ***@***.***> wrote:
ping
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#210 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABW3SWM2F73PYFAH7HZPQHLSG56OPANCNFSM4NA43LBA>
.
|
These commits try bumping the version up to 4.0, but they lack any kind of changelog, and most importantly, lack the sources. Yeah, that does sound funny but this is for real: author just removed sources, dumped some binaries leading to at least one major regression, and somehow all of that got through.
These changes clearly haven't got any peer review and shouldn't have been applied in the first place. Let's just revert them.
Fixes: #206
Fixes: #207
CC: @yozhijk