Regards to "odd" formats, build options

[perkele1989]

Hey, thanks for a great tool!

I am using it in my game engine, and I have patched it to be able to spit out custom "Kit Engine" cubemap .asset files! I'm wondering if you would accept this if I do a pull request?

With the addition of adding a new output type (kitasset), output format (kitcubemap), I have also had to patch the build files (get rid of the no-rtti and set C++ standard to C++14). I have also created a #define to enable building with support for it, as it depends on the kit engines C++ library (for stuff like data i/o and asset enums etc).

Would this be way "off-target" for this project? I'm thinking about integrating cmft into my editor (by forking a cmft-cli process and showing progress output in a textbox basically) and make it an "official" part of the toolset, so it would really benefit the kit project if this functionality could be pushed in the official repo, since I wouldn't have to patch it everytime you do a commit :)

Again, thank you a ton for this tool, you are doing the world a favour! Cheers

[dariomanesku]

Well, it seems to me that these changes are very specific to your engine and are not useful outside of its scope. I think it's best to keep these changes in a fork (in a separate branch).

Other than that, if you have any patches, bug-fixes.. etc. that aren't related to your engine specifics, I am more than happy to accept pull requests. Anything that's useful to general public is very welcome.

[perkele1989]

Hmm allright, thank you for the answer!

FWIW, the engine will be public, open-source, and free to use (although thinking about taking 5-10% of income from any generated revenue on released products). So in this regard, the engine (and the addons to your tools) would be useful to the public, although in a pretty scoped format.

If the above statement still doesn't change your opinion, I'll have to thank you again for your response, and of course I will submit any bug fixes etc !