benn/lumiera_documentation
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

sync latest documentation changes

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Fischlurch 2011-05-15 04:14:38 +02:00
commit d1135d98cc
51 changed files with 4479 additions and 184 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

60
admin/rfc.sh
View file

@ -4,10 +4,9 @@ shopt -s extglob
function usage()
{
less -F <<"EOF"
grep -v '^// ' <<"EOF" | less -F
Lumiera RFC maintenance script
==============================
// Note: the source of this documentation is maintained
// directly admin/rfc.sh in its usage() function
// edit it only there and then regenerate
@ -53,12 +52,14 @@ Smart matching
RFC names don't need to be given exactly, they use a globbing pattern.
This is:
- case insensitive
- whitespaces are ignored
- `*` stands for any number of parameters
- `?` is any single character
- when starting with `/` they are matched against the begin of the name
- some regex operators work too
* case insensitive
* whitespaces are ignored
* `*` stands for any number of parameters
* `?` is any single character
* when starting with `/` they are matched against the begin of the name
* some regex operators work too
`find` and `show` can operate on many matches so the given rfc name doesn't
need to be unique. The other commands will complain when the RFC name given
doesn't resolve to one unique RFC.
@ -223,29 +224,33 @@ function find_chapter()
function process()
function process_file()
{
local file="$1"
local path="${1%/*}"
local basename="${1##*/}"
local destpath="$path"
local state=$(grep '^\*State\* *' "$file")
case "$state" in
*Final*)
if [[ "$path" != "./doc/devel/rfc" ]]; then
git mv "$file" "./doc/devel/rfc"
fi
destpath="./doc/devel/rfc"
;;
*Idea*|*Draft*)
if [[ "$path" != "./doc/devel/rfc_pending" ]]; then
git mv "$file" "./doc/devel/rfc_pending"
fi
destpath="./doc/devel/rfc_pending"
;;
*Parked*|*Dropped*)
if [[ "$path" != "./doc/devel/rfc_dropped" ]]; then
git mv "$file" "./doc/devel/rfc_dropped"
fi
*Parked*)
destpath="./doc/devel/rfc_parked"
;;
*Dropped*)
destpath="./doc/devel/rfc_dropped"
;;
esac
if [[ "$path" != "$destpath" ]]; then
git mv "$file" "$destpath"
fi
git add "$destpath/$basename"
}
@ -334,7 +339,7 @@ function change_state()
local comment=".State -> $state$nl//add reason$nl $(date +%c) $(git config --get user.name) <$(git config --get user.email)>$nl"
edit_state "$name" "$state" "$comment"
edit "$name" -4 "endof_comments"
process "$name"
process_file "$name"
}
@ -347,7 +352,7 @@ process)
for file in $(find ./doc/devel/rfc* -name '*.txt');
do
echo "process $file"
process "$file"
process_file "$file"
done
:
;;
@ -375,15 +380,14 @@ create)
else
source ./doc/devel/template/new_rfc.sh >"./doc/devel/rfc_pending/${name}.txt"
edit "./doc/devel/rfc_pending/${name}.txt" 2 abstract
git add "./doc/devel/rfc_pending/${name}.txt"
process "./doc/devel/rfc_pending/${name}.txt"
process_file "./doc/devel/rfc_pending/${name}.txt"
fi
;;
edit)
name=$(unique_name "$1")
if [[ "$name" ]]; then
edit "${name}" 2 "$2"
git add "$name"
process_file "$name"
fi
;;
asciidoc)
@ -396,21 +400,18 @@ draft)
name=$(unique_name "$1")
if [[ "$name" ]]; then
change_state "$name" Draft
git add "$name"
fi
;;
park)
name=$(unique_name "$1")
if [[ "$name" ]]; then
change_state "$name" Parked
git add "$name"
fi
;;
final)
name=$(unique_name "$1")
if [[ "$name" ]]; then
change_state "$name" Final
git add "$name"
fi
;;
supersede)
@ -420,21 +421,19 @@ supersede)
newname="${newname%.txt}"
if [[ "$name" && "$newname" ]]; then
change_state "$name" "Superseded by $newname"
git add "$name"
fi
;;
drop)
name=$(unique_name "$1")
if [[ "$name" ]]; then
change_state "$name" Dropped
git add "$name"
fi
;;
comment)
name=$(unique_name "$1")
if [[ "$name" ]]; then
add_comment "${name}"
git add "$name"
process_file "$name"
fi
;;
discard)
@ -446,6 +445,7 @@ discard)
wrap)
find_rfc "$1" | while read file; do
smart_wrap "$file" 80
process_file "$file"
done
;;
smart_wrap)

3
admin/treeinfo.sh
View file

@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
#!/bin/sh
find -name DIR_INFO -printf '%-30h: ' -exec head -1 {} \; | sort | cut -c 1-92
COLUMNS=$(tput cols)
find -name DIR_INFO -printf '%-30h: ' -exec head -1 {} \; | sort -k1,1 | cut -c 1-${COLUMNS:-92}

9
doc/design/architecture/index.txt
View file

@ -8,6 +8,13 @@ the architecture of the application.
See link:ArchitectureSummary.html[here] for a short summary of the core architecture
ideas of the envisioned Lumiera Application.
.Rendering and Playback Control
This part of the architecture is concened with how to initiate, coordinate and control
the calculation processes necessary to generate visible / audible data from our source
media. This design is _not so much_ concerned with the actual calculations; indeed it
takes on an ``bird eye's view'', treating the actual render engine mostly just as an
opaque entity providing some service.
-> link:playRender.html[Design: Playback and Rendering]

191
doc/design/architecture/playRender.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
Design: Playback and Render Control
===================================
:Author: Ichthyostega
:Date: 5/2011
//MENU: label Player subsystem
**************************************************************************************
This part of the architecture is concened with how to initiate, coordinate and control
the calculation processes necessary to generate visible / audible data from our source
media. This design is _not so much_ concerned with the actual calculations; indeed it
takes on an ``bird eye's view'', treating the actual render engine mostly just as an
opaque entity providing some service.
**************************************************************************************
Collecting initial drafts
-------------------------
At start of 2011, several design sketches emerged already, as an offspring of other
discussions and brainstorming.
* the link:/documentation/devel/rfc_pending/EngineInterfaceOverview.html[Engine Interface draft]
contains some fundamental terms and definitions.
* discussions regarding time values and timecode handling shed some light onto the requirements
to be fulfilled by a player subsystem
- link:http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.lumiera.general/2116[Timecode Widget and Framerates]
- link:http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.lumiera.general/2109[Time, Time-spans, Quatisation and Timecode]
- link:http://lumiera.org/wiki/renderengine.html#TimeQuant[Definition of Time entities]
from the implementation notes in the TiddlyWiki
Reasoning about the Player Subsystem's structure
------------------------------------------------
At first sight, the name ``Player'' might be surprising.
The full, complete and precise name would be something along
the lines of ``_render- and playback-process coordination subsystem_''.
Now, we need to shorten that into a single word. The more obvious
abbreviation (just by the importance) would be _Render_, but that
would be strikingly misleading, because everyone would take that
to be the render engine. Which leaves us with _Player_. A second
consideration highlights similarities with the structure of a
typical software player -- the chosen term turns out to be well
aligned with the actual nature of that subsystem.
Influences and Requirements
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In accordance with the spirit of modern software development, the analysis
starts by determining which would be the _Service_ to be provided by such
a player. Consideration of the use cases determines the fundamental forces
to be _multiplicity_, combined with _differentiation in detail_, all under
the government of _time-bound delivery_, combined with _live reconfiguration_.
The basic service turns out to be the *performing of a preconfigured object model*.
This performance is *time based*. Multiple usage instances of this service can
be expected to coexist, each of which can be broken down into a set of *elementary
streams to be delivered in sync*. The parameters of delivery can be *reconfigured
on-the-fly*.
Modes of operation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Delivery can be either _free-wheeling_, so to cover a predefined time interval
with fixed quality calculations (final render), and it can be _throttled_ for using
excess computation power (background rendering). Or -- alternatively -- delivery can
be _time-bound_ (for classical playback), following the projection of wall clock time
onto a predefined timeline interval (the so called ``playhead'' or ``playback cursor''
proceeding along a timeline).
Reconfiguration
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some of these operation modes need to be prepared to an unpredictable live reconfiguration,
driven by user interactions:
- any part of background rendering can be invalidated and restarted, while other parts
should be re-integrated, possibly with adjusted position
- the linearly proceeding playback can at any time be
* paused
* reversed in direction
* playback speed adjusted
- the playback can be looped, with _unlimited_ adjustments of the loop boundaries any time.
Conclusions for the Design
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Based on these observations, the following design looks pretty much obvious:
Overall, the player subsystem can be described as ``play/render-this''-service.
Given an suitable (high-level) object, the Player has the ability to ``perform''
(play or render) it.
- the standard case is _playing a timeline_.
- it's conceivable to allow playing a selection of other objects,
like e.g. directly playing a clip or even media asset. In these cases,
its the player's job to prepare the necessary scaffolding on the fly.
Yet each such performance of an object is a _stateful instance_, a player application:
On application of the player service, the client gets a front-end handle, a *play-controller*,
which is a _state machine_. It provides states and transitions of the kind 'play', 'pause', 'ffwd',
'rew', 'goto', 'step', 'scrub' and similar. Moreover it maintains (or connects to) a distinct
playback location, and it can be hooked up with a play-control GUI widget
(or something simpler in case of a render process, which is free wheeling).
Each play-controller in turn gets associated with several *play/render-processes*,
one for each independent media stream (channel) to be produced. Of course this
isn't an operating system process; rather, ach such process is a compound of entries
in a registration table, which serve the purpose of tying several other services together,
which we initiate and use in order to make that render process happen.
Most notably, we'll use the services of the actual engine, which provides us with kind of
a *calculation stream service*: the ability to deliver a sequence of calculated
data frames in a timely fashion.
When a client requests such an instance of the player service, we build up these
parts providing that service, which cascades down to the individual elements.
At that point, we need to pull and combine two kinds of informations:
- the ``what'' to render: this information stems from the session/model.
- the ``how'' to render: this information is guided by the derived output configuration.
Viewer and Output connection
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Creating a player instance binds together three partners: a _timeline_, a _viewer_
and _the engine_. While the timeline provides the content to play, the _viewer connection_
is crutial for working out the actual output sink(s) and thus the output format to use.
Thus, a viewer connection is prerequisite for creating a player instance.
Viewer connections exist as associations in the session/model -- as entities separate
from the player. Usually, a timeline has (at least) one viewer connection. But in case
such a connection is (still) missing, building a player instance recurs to the session
to get a suitable viewer _allocated_. The viewer connection can't be broken during the
lifetime of that player instance (or putting it the other way: breaking that viewer
connection, e.g. by forcing a different connection or by shutting down the viewer,
immediately terminates the player. This detaching works synchroneously, i.e. it
blocks untlil all the allocated _output slots_ could be released.
Live switching
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While the viewer connection can be treated as fixed during the lifespan of a player
instance, several life switching and reconfiguration operations might happen anytime:
The _model port_ (place where data is retrieved from calculation), the output characteristics
(framerate, direction) and the delivery goals (playback position, loop playing, scrubbing)
all may be changed during playback -- we need a way for the player to ``cancel'' and
reconfigure the backend services.
Frame quantisation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quantisation is a kind of rounding; like any kind of rounding, quantisation is
a dangerous operation because it kills information content.
Thus there are three fundamental guidelines when it comes to rounding
. don't do it
. do it at most once
. do it as late as possible
These may guide the process of finding the right place for the Quantiser(s) to
apply. We need some information flows to be joined in order to be able to do
the quantisation, which leaves us with just a few possible junction points
where to place quantisation: The backend, the GUI, the player, the session.
- putting it into the backend seems to be the most reasonable at first sight:
We can ``do away'' with nasty things soon, especially if they are technicallities,
``get a clean state soon'' -- and hasn't frame quantisation something to do
with media data, which is handled in the backend?
+
Well, actually, all of those are pitfalls to trap the unwary. About
cleanliness, well (sigh). Doing rounding soon will leave us with a huge
amount of degraded information flows throughout the whole system; thus the
general rule to do it as late as possible. Uncrippled information is
enablement. And last but not least: the frame quantisation is connected
to the _output_ format -- and the backend is likely within the whole
application the subsytem most remote and unaware of output requirements.
- rounding/quantising in the GUI is extremely common within media applications;
unfortunately there seems to be not a single rational argument supporting that habit.
Most of all, it violates the subsidiarity principle.
Which leaves us with the player and the session. Both positions could
arguably be supported. Here, a more careful consideration shows, that
the ``act of frame rounding'' can be decomposed: into the _act of quantisation_
and the _frame grid:. Basically its the session which has the ability
to form the *frame grid*, but it is lacking crutial information about
the output. Only when connecting both -- which is the essence of the
player -- frame quantisation can actually be performed. Thus, the
player is the natural location to perform that quantisation operation.

0
doc/devel/images/fig132741.png → doc/devel/images/ProjectTimelineSequenceUML.png
View file

Side by side Swipe Overlay

Before

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 25 KiB

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 25 KiB

82
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2008-02-01.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
Initial Lumiera Developers Meeting
==================================
:Date: 2008-02-01
//Menu: label 2008-02-01 the first Lumiera Developers Meeting
__Participants__
* hermanr
* cehteh
* ichthyo
* Dasypus
* gmerlin
* SimAV
* pippin
* Plough
* Plouj
* Velmont
Discuss the open points in [Lumiera/DesignProcess] --- do we need this formalism?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At start of the project last summer, Cehteh made a http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess[design process proposal]. We will keeping this up, not for every implementation detail, but for major plans, wishes and design decisions. One point in the agenda of future meetings will be to work through proposals in the queue
* proposals in the "idea" state are not complete, can be just brainstorming or need further discussion. Comments please to the proposal page.
* proposals in the "draft" state are ready for conclusive discussion and will be treated in one of the next meetings
* "final" proposals are either "accepted" or "dropped". We don't differentiate the latter, but should write a short note why it was dropped.
* if there is need for more or finer grained categories, we'll extend the page and the template as needed or provide different views
The development model
---------------------
We employ a distributed model based on GIT. We want this repository to be as complete as possible, including documentation in embedded TiddlyWikis and Bug reports. Each dev has its own GIT repo, devs are pulling from each other, they are free to cherry pick and try to make the combined version work. Point is that everyone can clone the git, negotiate with the others what s(he) wants to do, and hack on. Every dev signs off his branch with an standardized signature. For small changes we provide a "Mob GIT", i.e. anonymously pushable git (which is untrusted of course). Cehteh is currently working on a git web frontend which makes the codebase in the mob-repo web-editable like a wiki.
Will we need a stable version or an official branch? not yet &mdash; as long as the team is small it will work more painless without. At some point, when the project is more mature, we will define an official branch. Later on we will have automated builds and regression test runs. As we do test-driven development anyways, it's just a question of someone setting up all the infrastructure, then we'll do it.
Ichthyo proposes a new requirement: All devs should ensure the "master" branch of their respective repositories always passes the compiler and the test suite. Work-In-Progress should be done on branches. Rationale: it is sufficient to pull from the master branches, and you can be sure the version you pulled worked for the originator.
A note on dependencies: it will be hard to target minimal dependencies for such a project, but we shall try not to bloat it unnecessarily. Sometimes it can be sensible to rather re-invent a feature &mdash; esp. when it fits into the core focus of the project &mdash; instead of depending on difficult to build and not sufficiently maintained external projects. But we should avoid reinventing things like GUI toolkits.
And, pretty much obvious, we try to stick to modern programming standards. Read: modules have interfaces, interfaces need some (minimal) documentation, and it is not allowed to bypass the interfaces and tangle everything in a wild fashion.
Currently, the project can be separated into three layers, which could evolve into sub-projects: Backend, Proc-Layer, GUI. For each part, the dev most deeply involved and most knowledgeable will take on the sometimes necessary leadership and have the last word in case of quarrels. Currently, Cehteh cares for the Backend and Ichthyo headed for the Proc-Layer. We have postponed any work on the GUI for now and don't participate in GUI toolkit discussions. If there is a dev willing to care for the GUI, collect proposals, care for usability and the users needs and finally code it up, then he will the one to decide what toolkit to use.
We plan to make the discussion about GPL v3 a point on the agenda of the next meeting.
Monthly meetings
----------------
* make it thursday, not friday
* time for now 21:00 GMT &mdash; if some (potential) participants have problems with this time, please speak up (maybe alternating times?)
* write a short status report for each mayor part *prior* to the meeting (saves us time). Maybe add an TODO list there
* go through the open issues for the design process drafts
* publish a protocol of each meeting on the (Cinelerra-CV, LibOpenvideo) Mailinglists, in the link:TiddlyWiki[] and on pipapo.org
* News, Protocols and the agenda of the next meeting can be found at link:MonthlyMeetings[this page here]
* next meeting on first Thursday in March (6.3.2008)
Who works on what, what are the short term goals, what tasks are open?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Ichthyo* works on the processing layer. Current goal is to get the core of the builder fleshed out. Next goal is to create a clip object (dummy), add it to the EDL, hand the EDL over to the builder and let the builder make the first (preliminary) render nodes. (note: left many details for later).
Ichthyo started coding his design draft and things seem to work out as intended. Some Keywords: Have a high-level model and a low level model. The former is comprised of the objects in the Session edited by the user, the latter is a network of completely configured render nodes, employing the same pull model as in Cinelerra-2. In between sits the Builder, translating high-level into low-level. This translation is done on demand (not for every frame).
Current state in this part is: basic asset manager is done, asset objects (forming a hierarchy) can be created and will be registered automatically, it is possible to create a clip-"MediaObject" from a media asset (without caring for any details regarding multichannel clips). Some support lib components are written, Session and data holders start up on demand and shutdown cleanly. The test suite is the only interesting executable, and this will remain so for quite some time. Currently writing the first parts of the Builder.
Further plans/ideas: Ichthyo is rather determined to embed a Prolog interpreter (YAP Prolog) to handle all sorts of configuration queries in a rule-driven fashion. Things Ichthyo can't do in the near future: caring for session loading/saving serialisation plus storage backends, caring for a DB based implementation of the asset manager and integration with production support software, target the scheduler which will receive any edit operations initiated from the GUI.
*Cehteh* is currently working on webgit, which is somewhat related inasmuch it will make small contributions to the mob repository much simpler. Previously he started with some foundation and support facilities. He plans to come back to the Backend implementation in about two weeks. The Backend is intended to handle all media (and even meta-)data as generalized frames. The render nodes network created by the Proc-Layer is completely stateless and all data is served from below. While it will be possible to address and access individual data within a frame (e.g. audio samples), frames are the smallest unit for memory and cache management. No plans to use a tiled memory model or to support frames larger than aprox. 20-40% of the available RAM.
Cehteh's design plan includes a scheduler to organize the access to the raw data, monitor the timings and prefetch data as needed. This scheduler will be configurable via quality preferences ("need realtime", "need perfect quality"). Further, there will be an elaborate caching scheme trying hard to avoid re-rendering any frames already calculated previously. Temporary data will be backed by files and thus swapped out &mdash; this swapout and size of temporary data is to be monitored and adjusted according to the current load &mdash; and all temporary data is kept as most-recent-used cache discipline. Incoming and outgoing footage shall mostly be handled by using mmaped buffers. The rationale is to avoid unnecessary copy from kernel to user space and wasting memory for an additional in-kernel buffer. Writing via a mmapped buffer is little more tricky; there will be a in-place writing which is used for indices and other precalculated data which needs updates, and the processing layer can query write buffers which are actually a small cache/ring and then comited to the file. Basically, mmapping is a clean solution if you can design for it, and it's portable (posix)
Things to do: object serialisation backend is sometime on Cehteh's schedule, but that's ahead and if someone else helps or takes over it would be OK. Even more true for a DB based backend for the asset manager.
*Gmerlin* plans to implement grayscale support for GAVL, so the upper layers can store arbitrary data in it.
About multithreading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since the render nodes are stateless they can be driven in multiple threads (but inter frame dependencies need to be resolved/serialized). Mostly the backend manages threads and does that quite conservatively (compared to Cinelerra-2 which massively creates separate threads for small tasks). Any edit operations initiated from GUI go to a scheduler in the middle layer, which enqueues and effectively serializes operations done to the "media objects" in the high-level model. The editing operations themselves are *not threadsafe* by design, they rely on being scheduled correctly. The builder is triggered from this Proc-Layer scheduler and starts in one separate thread, and when done, we swap whole parts of the render nodes network and then the backend can re(start) rendering as needed.
The naming discussion
---------------------
The discussion looks healthy so far... People can add new proposals on the http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/Names[pipawiki]. Interesting names are still coming in, so we should just let the name-choosing game go on for a while. And, btw, we _can_ depart from beeing similar to "Cinelerra" ;-)
Let's say, we need a person volonteering to guide/moderate the selection, going over the list and scratching inammprobiate ones. Criteria for good names being:
* should not be an existing project
* should be "googleable"
* should not be offensive
* should have one of the free top level domains (.net, .org)
* should be compatible with educational institutions (sorry, no pr0nedit :)
* should not obviously collide with trade marks

189
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2008-03-06.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
2008-03-06 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
:Author: cehteh
:Date: 2008-03-07
__Participants__
* hermanr
* cehteh
* ichthyo
* Plouj
* SimAV
* akirad
* _MMA_
* rgareus
* ddennedy
* edrz
* anewcomb
* gmerlin
* oracle2025
* gisle
Boilerplate
-----------
Organization of this meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* cehteh writes the protocol
* hermanr does chairman
Leftovers from last meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We concluded there are no leftovers
Go through Ideas and Drafts in design process
---------------------------------------------
Idea: time_handling
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/time_handling[]
Point 1 is superseded by using gavl.
Points 2 and 3 are still valid.
Ichthyo asked gmerlin if there are any problems according gavl for the points 2 (position of frames) and 3 (position for keyframes and automation). Gmerlin acknowledges that he doesnt see any problems.
Oracle2025 brings interlacing on topic "are you aware that automations and keyframes could/should also apply to fields?". We agree that this must be handled "in interlacing, a frame is a pair of 2 subsequent fields".
Conclusion:
Refactor the proposal according to the discussion and work it out, make it draft then. Discuss about it on the next meeting
Idea: Unit tests in Python
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/UnitTests_Python[]
We have a testsuite based on cehtehs 'test.sh' which superseedes this proposal.
Conclusion:
Drop it.
Idea: Todo Lists
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/TodoLists[]
This Idea is in a very early state an not yet mature.
Cehteh explains: "I want something which doesn't need much human care and i want one big \'milestones' thing and a small \'mini-task' thing". Ichthyo refines this as "Roadmap" and "Near time task list". We agree that this shall not be too strict. There are some ideas floating, like adding this things to the testsuite or use the wiki. Ichthyo shows how he uses the tiddlywiki's task macro (http://ichthyostega.de/cin3/wiki/renderengine.html#PlanningNodeCreatorTool[]). He likes it but doubts its usefulness when it is used without guessing the hours/days of work.
Conclusion:
We use the Tiddlywiki task macro thing for now.
Draft: CCodingStyleGuide
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/CCodingStyleGuide[]
Ichthyo tells that the discussion on the wiki page made this clear now. Cehteh explains that he uses this style with success for diffrent projects. We make clear that this is meant for C, in C++ we use namespaces. Overall we agree that code shall be self-documenting.
Conclusion:
Make it final.
Draft: DevelopmentFramework
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/DevelopmentFramework[]
Cehteh explains that he will transfer this propoal to a tiddlywiki covering compatibility guides and dependencies. We conclude that this wiki must reflect the actual practice (NoBug, Doxygen, test.sh) despite the proposal is not concrete yet.
A short discussion about build systems came up, we still use autotools and scons in parallel, delaying the decision later. oracle2025 mentioned that scons could be used for development and autotools for release. No decision about that everyone has different opinions. But we agree that it works as is.
Conclusion:
Cehteh will make the proposed wiki which shall be maintained to reflect the state and this topic will be finalized by that.
Draft: Skills Collection
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/SkillsCollection[]
This might be only useful if there are more developers working on the project.
Conclusion:
Leave in draft state for now.
Draft: Architecture Overview
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/ArchitectureOverview[]
Ichthyo drawn a diagram showing the planned architecture. Cehteh raises concerns about codecs/plugins/effects in backend. After that there was some discussion about details. Cehteh suggests to place plugins in a extra box, gmerlin suggests that \'plugins' don't fit into the diagram, there should be "filters", "sources",..; Followed by some more discussion, showing that we basically agree and understand the design but the drawing needs some refinements.
Conclusion:
Good idea, needs some refinements, work in progress.
Call for Design
---------------
Ichthyo explains that the wants the overall design a bit more formalized. He put this topic on the agenda to remind that we have to work it out in link:DesignProcess[] and already started to make some design proposals.
Conclusion:
Things need to be worked out in link:DesignProcess[], take a look and review it.
Naming
------
Raffa, Velmont, goibhniu and others collected and managed proposed names past weeks which finally ended in a community voting. Results are at http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/results.pl?id=E_9fad0d1d10c23d38[]
Lumiera won, Lumiera.org is free and no one of in this meeting has objections against this name. Velmont offers to register and pay for the lumiera.org domain which will be hosted on our own server (see topic below). Hermanr raises concerns if it is ok when the name is registered on another site and by another person than the server, cehteh explains that he like this distribution where doable and no one other objects. Ichthyo asks about a short name for Lumiera which will be used for C++ namespaces and such kinds. After a short discussion we agree that we use the full name and no abbreviation. We now have to rename the source and the wiki. Anyone renames the sourcecode where he is responsible for. Cehteh will go over the pipapo.org wiki and rename things.
Finally we express our great thanks to the people who put the efforts into the name selection, thanks raffa, Velmont, goibhniu & co.
Conclusion:
Projectname is Lumiera, we have a lot things to rename.
Project Server, setup, organization, administration
---------------------------------------------------
Some people gathered together and rented a server at http://www.hetzner.de[hetzner.de] which will host some free project pages and personal sites. Cehteh is the one who signed for the server and officially respobsible for it.
The server is split into isolated \'vservers' which are created as needed. Idea is to work cooperatively to get the best out of its resources.
For our projects (cinelerra.org and lumiera.org) we now need volunteers who help setting it up and administrating things. Velmont offered to help with lumiera.org, hermanr takes care of cinelerra.org, raffa will help with maintaining the webpages. oracle2025 will care for developer chroots, build and test environments. cehteh will make a page on pipapo.org which reflects the current server setup http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/RootServerSetup[]. There are still a lot jobs to do!
Cehteh asked about how to manage emergency root access on the host/root server when he is unreachable. There where several suggestions between one root key for all who pay for the server to shared key schemes. We finally agreed that anyone who payed for the server can send a ssh key to ssh to be registered for emergency access.
The concrete server setup will be worked out next days. Ideas are one frontend proxy and a shared nameserver. A shared nameserver, A developer vserver shared between all developers. Maybe a shared mail server.
Hermanr asked about how to handle distribution of large media files. There was some discussion about bittorrent vs http. We concluded to work that out as needed.
In the forthcoming discussion about cehteh stresses that "it is a public server, if you place confidential information unencrypted on it, its you fault". Ssh keys shall be kept secret by the users but we can't enforce policies on those.
Ichthyo asks about how to setup lumiera.org (wiki?), oracle2025 suggests webgit, cehteh explains that webgit isn't ready yet but should be useable in a few days (pipapo.org will use that too). Velmont suggest a \'real' website for the time when non-developers want to use it. Git will be set up on lumiera.org the same way as it is currently set up on pipapo.org.
Hermanr asked Velmont about some help moving the bugs.cinelerra.org over, this might be little challenging since it needs an MTA and other things.
Ichthyo asks about keeping the Lumiera project pages on pipapo.org until the server is ready, this is ok.
Conclusions:
We have our own server which now needs volunteers for maintenance. The projects will slowly move there, until ready Lumiera stays on pipapo.org.
GPL3 pros cons, license rationale
---------------------------------
Ichthyo and cehteh would like to investigate a license change to GPLv3, neither of us has experience with problems this
might raise. Questions are if we lock us out from potential libraries which are GPLv2 only or lock out possible contributors because of unforeseen patent clauses. The others here thinking that "GPLv2 or later" would be most-compatible. Gmerlin tells that he uses some "GPLv2 only" mplayer code in gavl which is itself "GPLv2 or later". Cehteh explains that "GPLv2 only" code is a problem, where "GPLv2 or later" is not. Ichthyo raises concerns that the Support library may need to be LGPL, cehteh mentions that it would likely be enough if we only apply that to the plugin-loader. After all it turns out that there is a lot of confusion, misunderstanding and interpretation used with licenses and no one of us knows for sure. Finally we conclude that the interpretation and license enforcement is ruled by the copyright owner.
Conclusion:
Learn more about GPLv3, use GPLv2 or later and propose to switch to GPLv3 when we are ready to do public beta releases when possible.
Next meeting
------------
The next meeting will be at thuesday 3rd april 21:00GMT (if not rescheduled see below).
Ichthyo tells that Martin Ellison wrote he couldn't attend because of the time. So again we made a short discussion about changing/alternating timings to allow people in downunder/japan to attend. They have to speak up an make time suggestions.
Conclusion:
Next meeting 3rd april 21:00GMT. But Aussies, please speak up if you want the time changed!

290
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2008-04-03.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,290 @@
2008-04-03 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
:Author: Sami Kallinen
:Date: 2008-04-09
__Participants__
* cehteh
* gmerlin
* hermanr
* ichthyo
* joelholdsworth
* johncoswell
* rgareus
* sakalli
Boilerplate
-----------
Organization of this meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* sakalli writes the protocol, ichthyo will help reviewing it
Recurring Topics
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We concluded there are no leftovers and currently no Drafts from the design process to discuss
Call for volunteers
-------------------
(which tasks are to do, how can we interest people...?)
There was a sense that there are people willing to help but they might need direction or cannot do actual coding. But there is also a lot of tasks that could be done by beginners and non-programmers. These tasks are important and if someone who is not a programmer is willing to take them on that leaves more time for the programmers. Examples of such tasks:
* Protocol writing
* maintaining to do lists and isolating tasks
* constant code and documentation review
* unit/functional testing
* header file "task force" - some fundamentals discussed by the developers on libopenvideo should find their way into basic .h files
* installing and maintaining project tracking and automated builds/tests on the server
See http://www.lumiera.org/wiki/todo.html#Tasks[]
It was also noted that at current phase some basic development is still needed before we can accommodate a large number of coders doing small tasks and for now we need some subsystem owners. For GUI for example.
To make it easier for "beginners" to get aquainted with the program it was decided that one *official Lumiera GIT repository* should be established.
Project announcements/registration
----------------------------------
(freshmeat, gnu, etc...) any takers?
The discussion was about advertising the project on various sites. There were some concerns raised that it is too early to do too much publicity at the moment. That the right time should be shortly before the first public release. But there is also some value in registering to the project in planning/alpha stage to interest people such as prospective coders. It was noted that the http://www.linux.com/feature/126441[article on linux.com] resulted in a lot of people contacting ichthyo and cehteh. http://plot.bek.no/pipermail/piksel/2008-January/003328.html["I believe in Cinelerra"] by Leo Germani also generated a lot of traffic by developers. Some level of presence on mailing lists would be good although not too much just enough to indicate the project is going on.
Conclusion: volunteer needed to coordinate publicity (not overly urgent, but helpful)
Informal talk about the GUI
---------------------------
Firstly, as SimAV was not able to be present during the meeting a proposal by him was relayed by Ichthyo: GUI and backend should be completely separated and communicate via pipes. It was agreed that the GUI should be detached but some higher level message protocol rather than bare pipes should be used. Some comments:
* cehteh standalone gui is a nice to have, but implementation details have to be worked out
* gmerlin Video playback can be separated in a separate X connection
* cehteh suggests to start with an conventional, attached gui and just keep it in mind to make it detachable later
* rgareus IMHO you want to share memory for the video-frame buffer beween the player and backend - with pipes you'll go the video-jack way.
joelholdsworth is a new developer in the group and had showed interest in developing the GUI. he stated that he is interested in seeing a GUI that uses popular toolkits and that plays by the standards to create a consistent UI with the rest of the free desktop. For this reason he was advocating using GTKmm. There was no direct objections to GTKmm. Generally, there seems some preference for GTK. (Note this doesn't mean GNOME). Cehteh advocates the idea to use Lua-gtk, i.e. writing the GUI in a clean and lightweight scripting language.
Cario was suggested to be used for implementing the canvas in the timeline view.
The gui should provide a skeleton. Timeline and canvas should be controllable and extensible by plugins. Tracks can be nested. Use tiling windows and dockeable views and tools palettes. For example some configuration within session/renderpipeline may cause some pluggable elements to be added to the gui. A fader or a toggle/icon and so forth. Some plugins might render additional output (e.g. in previews). A video track renders thumbnails, automation curves on top.
Workflow is another important aspect to take into account in the design. A lot of information needs to come from editors and users in the design process. Different thoughts about the workflow:
* Should not make a predefined workflow. Just produce a tool that can be adapted to different workflows. It can be predefined, but should not be fixed.
* We dont have the resources to develop a "workflow" in the formal manner, we will go the "propose and comment" route.
* We should take the best ideas from popular competing products such as Final Cut Pro, AVID, Premiere plus After Effects.
Customisation is deemed important. Some points brought up in the discussion:
* sakalli: would be great if we could provide a fcp configuration and a avid configuration besides the default configuration as well. That could lure a lot of users quickly. On the other side, too much flexibility can be be a problem as well.
* cehteh: yes .. but such things are prolly costly to setup .. we need volunteers for anything optional
* Customization should be possible without recompile, but not too cheap.
* There should be a working skeleton or some fixed anchor but gui operations should be bound to a scripting language to achieve customization.
* The whole gui in a script with some performance critical widgets coded in C/C++
* Some parts should just be customizable, other parts should be kept fixed.
* cehteh suggested to start out by making a \'high level' description with no language/toolkit in mind .. what widgets do we need etc and after that to work on the skeleton mockup.
* cehteh / hermanr: Lumiera should allow to choose theme independently from desktop .. because what you have as your desktop-theme doesn't suit for video editing in many cases ... see ardour
ichthyo brings up the role of customization for the middle layer and gives an overview of his plans for the new participants.
He had good experiences with a rule based aproach in various projects. He wants to embed a Prolog interpreter that can answer to "configuration queries". There is a "builder" component in the middle layer to derive the render nodes graph based on a "high level model", which is visible to the user (in the GUI) and based on these configuration queries.
Rationale for using prolog is: The rules are very readable because they rather represent facts and relations, not the way "how dings are done" but the way "how things are related". Example: how to configure some effects when the footage is interlaced. Additionally, we want to have some global swithces, which could control these rules, like "I want maximum quality", or "I want as much as possible set up automatically". The prolog rules are stored in the session and can be editd by advanced users. Of course, there is a set of basic rules. This aspect of customisation isn't exactly a GUI issue but it would have consequences for the GUI.
some discussion:
* joelholdsworth: so we just need a way of exposing properties. This is reasonably straightforward when all you want is value, colour, string etc.
* rules within the middle layer/session could bind to some properties exposed in the GUI
* gmerlin joelholdsworth: Agree, but point out that this can become difficult
* cehteh joelholdsworth: skeleton and plugins who attach into some gui areas, so you can add custom widgets
* ichthyo: also the ability to attach "tags" to various objects, so the rules can bind on those tags
* cehteh: maybe a standard set of widgets, not really completely custom ones (gmerlin agrees)
* joelholdsworth: probably you need to be able to do both well
* joelholdsworth in many apps the value/colour/string set works perfectly well, but in luminierra the controls will likely need to be much richer
Some brainstorming points about usability:
* We need a realy good bezier widget for all sorts of curves.
* Faders that can be grabbed everywhere are nice like like ardours and Blender faders. Or others which have no big knob
* The controls in blender's node view would be a good modal to copy (not advocating GL UI, just using widgets and concepts).
One extra point:
* we have agreed to make all of the big interfaces between the layers as plain C interfaces, because this is the most widely supported common denominator.
GUI CONCLUSION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* joelholdsworth is now the official GUI maintainer for Lumiera!
* sakalli, hermanr, ichthyo announced interest in contributing to discussions about GUI, workflows and usability. gmerlin noted that he knows some gtk secrets and is willing to help out here too.
Froscon application
-------------------
http://www.froscon.org/[Froscon] is a small nice german open source exhibition that is very very technical oriented. Cehteh will be there as well as Ichthyo. Question is wether we should have a booth, perhaps together with some other interested media projects. Could ask Richard and the ffmpeg/mplayer people. End of call for papers is in june.
We made no decision about official presence but most likely there will be a developer meeting if nothing else.
Timecode metadata discussion
----------------------------
This Discussion started out on the libopenvideo list: The question was wether we agree on one uniform format solution from decoder up to app level regarding timecode. And what this format would be: arithmetic or struct type. Regarding metadata (including type of timecode) the question is if we should work out a rather fixed data format, or go the route towards rather open description records.
Conclusion: Gmerlin does it the way it fits best for within the decoder, and Lumiera uses a more uniform time format for representing timecode in the higher app layers. Conversion functions will be concentrated in a library. Regarding metadata we will investigate further.
_A (shortended) digest of the timecode and metadata discussion is attached below_
Next meeting
------------
The next meeting will be at thuesday 8th may 21:00GMT
''''
.Timecode discussion
----
12:51 cehteh gmerlin: did you read my last mail about generalization of metadata?
12:51 cehteh key/value pairs
12:51 gmerlin not sure about that
12:51 cehteh i am pretty sure that i want that in lumiera
12:52 cehteh if gavl does that for us it would be even better
12:52 gmerlin first of all 2 different things:
12:52 gmerlin 1. arithmetic <-> struct
12:53 gmerlin 2. Generic <-> format specific
12:53 cehteh arithmetic for sure
12:53 gmerlin On the decoder API side, I want to export ideally only one type
12:54 gmerlin No no SMPTEXXX and ISO999908098
12:54 cehteh will that be attached to the frames in a intrusive way?
12:54 cehteh i rather leave the attaching up to the application
12:54 gmerlin intrusive?
12:55 cehteh struct frame { uint64_t timecode; } vs...
12:55 cehteh struct frame { struct metadata* something; }
12:55 cehteh or even vs something done at a api level
12:56 gmerlin struct lumiera_video_frame { gavl_video_frame_t * f; uint64_t timecode};
12:56 gmerlin Or add timecodes to gavl_video_frame_t
12:57 cehteh struct lumiera_video_frame { gavl_video_frame_t * f; struct metadata* timecode_n_stuff; }
12:57 ichthyo so I support a struct metadata*
12:58 cehteh ichthyo: timecodes might not be regular .. they should be optional, but anyways they dont cost when using an arithmetic type
12:58 cehteh i mean thats the purpose of timecodes .. to tag every frame and dont make assumptions that your footage is perfect
12:58 ichthyo but a struct metadata* would rather mean to keep it out of basic GAVL and have a libmetadata -- which may be integrated with GAVL -- right?
12:59 cehteh someome may have stolen a frame :P
12:59 cehteh thats gmerlins decision ...
12:59 gmerlin I'm against gavl integration of metadata
12:59 gmerlin gavl has a clear scope: Number crunching
01:00 cehteh gmerlin: you somehow have to pass it from the decoder to the application
01:01 cehteh i would prefer to introduce some sidechannel
01:01 gmerlin Yes, gmerlin_avdecoder will provide a separate function for getting the next timecode
01:01 gmerlin bgav_get_next_timecode()
01:01 cehteh gavl_get_frame (gavl_frame* place the frame here, metadata* place metadata there)
01:01 gmerlin or: bgav_timecode_from_pts()
01:03 gmerlin Some higher MXF profiles allow changing timecode parameneters in one stream
01:06 gmerlin It's sometimes impossible to separate demuxers and codecs
01:06 gmerlin better have them together in one lib
01:06 cehteh actually i would like to cache gavls internal states into the backend
01:08 gmerlin Ok, so timecodes are YYYYMMDDHHMMSSFF as int64_t
01:08 cehteh the indexing is something i prolly have some words about
01:09 cehteh timecodes are uint64_t as microseconds
01:09 cehteh well for lumiera :-P
01:10 cehteh YYYYMMDDHHMMSSFF as int64_t isnt that much better than a struct :P
01:11 ichthyo now, IMHO its mostly up to gmerlin to decide how it fits into GAVL
01:11 cehteh ack
01:11 gmerlin Not gavl
01:11 ichthyo gmerlin?
01:11 gmerlin gmerlin avdecoder yes.
01:11 cehteh in lumiera we will use usecs
01:11 ichthyo yes
01:12 ichthyo we will have a conversion function somewhere
01:12 gmerlin And will it include a calendar date?
01:12 cehteh doing it only once (avdecoder->usec) makes some sense
01:12 gmerlin usecs since when?
01:12 ichthyo either, we get directly usecs from avdecoder, if this fits in for gmerlin,
01:12 ichthyo or we'll get the format which works best for him and we do the conversion ourselves
01:12 cehteh defined elsewhere
01:12 cehteh reel-start or absolute time or whatever
01:13 ichthyo also, what sort of timecode this was based on (drop frame or not)
01:13 cehteh gmerlin: thats a important point .. just uint64_t does not suffice
01:13 cehteh it needs a tag describing what kind of timecode was used
01:14 cehteh no matter how you encode it
01:14 cehteh and iirc there are quite some timecodes
01:14 ichthyo because in this respect richard was right: we need to be able to reprocuce any value 1:1
01:14 cehteh yep
01:15 cehteh further i want to be able to convert between any kind of timecode in a fingersnip
01:15 gmerlin ichthyo: and that's impossible with usecs
01:15 cehteh gmerlin: its not
01:15 ichthyo with usecs alone: agreed
01:16 ichthyo with usecs + metadata it should be possible
01:16 ichthyo modulo some extreme cases (high speed cams, weeks of footage....)
01:16 cehteh yes .. you need framerate and other infos depending on the metadata
01:17 cehteh you need to be careful to do the math right so that inverse functions dont drift
01:17 gmerlin I'll export something lossless, which repduces MXF, DV and Quicktime timecodes losslessly
01:17 gmerlin You can then do what you want with them :)
01:17 cehteh thats why i would like to do it at only *one* place/library .. because its delicate and bugs are easier to spot/fix there
01:18 ichthyo and then there is some api to get at the additional metadata
01:18 cehteh yeah
01:18 ichthyo and beyond that: lets devise a libmetadata
01:18 cehteh just shove the data over .. YYYYMMDDHHMMSSFF as int64_t would be ok
01:18 gmerlin Ok.
01:18 cehteh we make a libmetadata (as part of our support lib)
01:19 cehteh somewhat independent so that it can be spun out
----
.about Metadata
----
01:19 cehteh gmerlin: well .. how bout other metadata
01:19 cehteh your decoder needs to pass that too
01:20 gmerlin like?
01:20 gmerlin Author, Artist title...
01:20 cehteh some cameras encode shutter speed, focus, gain control, colour balance
01:20 cehteh and other things
01:20 gmerlin Hmmm
01:20 gmerlin I think MXF exports some of these
01:21 ichthyo wav files can have additional chunks; whats with flac?
01:21 gmerlin flac has vorbis metadata
01:21 ichthyo important for the more modern sound formats
01:21 cehteh dunno .. just thinkin about pro codecs and raw film metadata
01:21 ichthyo just wanting to point out: things to come here,
01:22 ichthyo e.g for sound: what stream is what channel
01:22 gmerlin Channel locations are handles by gavl
01:22 gmerlin If you have a multichannel stream
01:22 cehteh well .. note that there is per-asset metadata you want to pass .. and per frame metadata
01:22 cehteh maybe even some more undiscovered cases :)
01:23 cehteh did someone say this is easy??
01:23 sakalli did any of you watch the video regarding red workflow that i sent to the mailing list? redcode raw holds everyting, asa, wb, etc... hope lumiera will be able to facilitate that as well.
01:23 ichthyo at some point I want to be able to support ambisonics
01:24 ichthyo and maybe some day there will be wave field sysnthesis in more broad use
01:24 cehteh the codec in the back needs to pass us these things else we cantb handle it
01:24 gmerlin well, the easiest would be to extend bgav_metadata_t
01:24 ichthyo rationale is: just be open
01:24 cehteh gmerlin: maybe we need to investigate this things more, nothing needs to be decided now
01:24 ichthyo ack
01:25 cehteh see my key/value metadata proposal .. at some point maybe you make a complete sidechannel just for metadata
01:25 cehteh decoder stuffs that in on demand and it is passed along with its own api like the bgav_timecode_from_pts()
01:26 cehteh that way you dont need to touch it more than necessary
01:26 gmerlin shouldn't that key/value stuff be unified with plugin parameters?
01:27 cehteh for lumiera, maybe, maybe not
01:27 ichthyo you mean: you have a common api for describing "values" ?
01:27 cehteh some plugin parameters are determined by math functions
01:27 gmerlin You have a key, a type and a value
01:27 cehteh maybe for caching them
01:27 cehteh the api might be unified .. but the storage not
01:28 gmerlin why?
01:28 ichthyo because any block of data could be in the metadata
01:28 cehteh metadata which belongs to the frame coming from the decoder is const
01:28 cehteh plugin parameters are volatile
01:33 gmerlin One other point (but too late for it now) are audio timecodes. I'll adress that on libopenvideo
01:33 cehteh we will write a little more sophisticated timecode library
01:34 cehteh gmerlin: that should be unified :)
----

244
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2008-05-08.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,244 @@
2008-05-08 Lumiera Developers Meeting
======================================
:Author: cehteh
:Date: 2008-05-15
__Participants__
* cehteh
* joelholdsworth
* ichthyo
* raffa
* Wes``Lappy
* gmerlin
Boilerplate
-----------
Organization of this meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* cehteh writes the protocol
Webpage-Infrastructure, Maintenance
-----------------------------------
Cehteh put this on topic because it's really urgent to bring up some
infrastructure to manage the information we produce.
The Lumiera pages on pipapo.org were always meant as intermediary
solution. Pipapo.org gets much spam on the moinmoin wiki and cehteh
expresses that he wants to move pipapo.org to a new infrastructure
based on asciidoc and git he created
(see http://git.pipapo.org/uWiki.html[]). This system is barely useable
and needs lots of work to be completed. It would be nice to use it for
Lumiera too, if the others agree. Maintaining and extending
(scripting) needs someone who knows shell scripting and doesn't need
to be done by the core devs freeing their resources to work on
Lumiera. Cehteh expresses that none of the people who proposed to
help before showed up yet. WesLappy tells he might help (addendum not
this week, because he is busy).
Next there was a suggestion by cehteh to convert the tiddlywikis to
asciidoc. Ichthyo expresses that he likes the tiddlywikis, Joel
mentions that they feel a little odd. Generally we all agree that
they have some problems in sense of workflow and merging.
Ichthyo makes the suggestion to keep the tiddlywikis as scrapbook and
build up \'official' documentation based on their content in
whatever-we-use-then (asciidoc) documentation system. All agree on
this approach.
Back to the new wiki, cehteh suggests to make stricter access rules to
prevent spam: "There will be a group of \'Validated' people which
following rules: only Validated people can edit general content and
\'Validated' people can add new people to \'Validated' themselves". That
means that we can have a lightweight self-administrating
authentication where new people have to be introduced by someone who
is already there.
Ichthyo suggests to send a reply to Serge G. who send an introduction
to the cinelerra mailing list expressing that he would like to help.
Raffa will take care of content/design as much her time/knowledge permits.
Conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~
* We really need someone to help with the webpage scripting.
* Documentation needs to be well organized and moved over.
* Content of the pipapo.org moinmoin wiki should be moved over.
* The new website should be well organized with a nice looking frontpage
* All other documentation should be below that
Whats pending in link:DesignProcess[]
-------------------------------------
MistakestoAvoid
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/MistakestoAvoid[]
rick_777 wrote a "MistakestoAvoid" page which explains some possible
gotchas. We basically agree with most points there while we already
decided to address some things differently than he suggested. One
noteable difference is that we do not intent to provide a windows
version of Lumiera, which was explained in serveral places. Cehteh
added some comments to the page explaining some things.
nothing more to discuss in \'Ideas', we go over to \'Drafts'
ArchitectureOverview
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/ArchitectureOverview[]
Cehteh suggests to put that drawing under version control, as .fig.
Ichthyo explains that it is already a .SVG and that he does not like
.fig.
Conclusion: We agree to keep it as .SVG, add it to the repository and
improve/complete it.
GitSubmoduleTransistion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/GitSubmoduleTransistion[]
Another suggestion made by cehteh is to make managing of subprojects
within the sourcetree easier. Joel and ichthyo oppose that it is not
really needed now and needs more understanding of git. Ichthyo
suggests that the documentation might be separated into its own git,
he further explains that the things are not settled yet and we don't
know if we will some rearrangements and movements of files between
modules.
Conclusion: We transform the documentation to a submodule and see how
it works. Other things will be decided much later.
GlobalInitialization
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/GlobalInitialization[]
This topic is discussed and agreed on the link:DesignProcess[] page already.
Conclusion: finalize it
MasterRepositorySetup
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/MasterRepositorySetup[]
Setting up an master repository was decided on the last meeting.
cehteh now set one up which also does some automatic, but intended
fragile merging from subsystem maintainer branches.
1. it updates automatically for the maintainers repo for conflict
free fast-forwards
2. it can always be overridden with explicit pushes
The others agree on the setup.
Ichthyo stresses that maintainers shall watch that their \'master'
branch should compile cleanly and pass the testsuite always, test
which are not operational should be tagged as PLANNED. We all
agree, while cehteh's master is currently in a broken state (note:
fixed now).
Then a short discussion about building and synchronizing the docs
follows. Problem is that docs build in maintainer branches are
different for each branch, rsyncing them up to the server will always
change a lot of things. We agree that the \'official' docs shall be
build from the LUMIERA/master repository, preferably on the \'devel'
vserver which has to be set up.
Conclusions: Make this final, setup build environment in the devel
server and build docs there.
NoBugFlags
~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/NoBugFlags[]
Defining a debugging control hierarchy. This is work in progress and
cehteh explains that he works it out and deploys it, this depends on
the link:GlobalInitialization[] decided earlier.
Conclusion: accepted, finish and finalize it.
Further Technical Discussion
----------------------------
Ichthyo asks how the GUI will be pulled up. Since he didn't attend IRC
discussions recently he has no information yet whats going on. We
explain him that we already made some discussions. Integrate the GUI
into the build system probably linked as library, nothing finally
decided yet. Communication will go over the plugin/interface facility
(Plain C API). This things should be worked out and documented in
link:DesignProcess[].
Cehteh made a small tool `./admin/headercheck` which will gradually
extended to proof that headers are sufficiently selfstanding.
Progress
--------
Cehteh finished low level file handling and working in mmaping and
frameprovider next. When thats finished, the finalization of the
Plugin loader and interface definition things is the most urgent thing.
Ichthyo works on the builder internals and next on some sort of
"connection manager".
Joel goes on with GUI programming and integrating it into the source
tree next.
Gmerlin and cehteh discuss about how to handle the index files which
avdecoder uses internally. cehteh would like to manage them in the
Lumiera backend to, because filehandles are a precious resource.
Gmerlin explains that this index files are just loaded and kept in
memory. So this poses no problem for filehandle exhaustion. We will
discuss this further via email.
Cehteh suggests that we should think about some kind of
preferences/registry sometime next to store default configs.
Following a discussion about how messages are passed between GUI and
core. Generally we will use the interfaces defined by the plugin
system. Gmerlin says that he uses message queues in \'gmerlin', Joel
requests that a lot of things should be done synchronous and he wants
to avoid message queues. Cehteh suggests to use use the scheduler for
GUI things too. For the parts where the GUI interacts with the high
level proc model ichthyo and joel agree on working something
(synchronous) out. Ichthyo stresses that the edit core is not
threadsafe by design and relies on the backends scheduler.
The underlying builder might sometimes to expensive for synchronous
calls (ichthyo plans a rule system there) this needs to be worked out.
Ichthyo explains that the builder needs to detect cycles and check if
the high level model is translateable into the low level model (in
case plugins git removed and so on). Parts in the render graph which
are not \'doable' should be flagged as erroneous but not dropped since
one doesn't want to loose project information when loading a project
on a machine with different installed plugins. In any case it should be
possible that the GUI gets immediate synchronous feedback for such
things.
Next Meeting
------------
Next meeting is on 5th June 21:00 UTC

81
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2008-06-06.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
2008-06-06 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
:Author: ichthyo
:Date: 2008-06-07
21:00 -23:15 UTC on #lumiera
Participants:
-------------
* cehteh
* ichthyo
* joelholdsworth
* rcbarnes
* raffa
Left over from the last meeting
-------------------------------
Nothing left over and no urgent topics. Seemingly, work is proceeding in all parts of the application.
Discuss Ideas and Drafts in design process
------------------------------------------
There are no new design proposals and no proposals that can be finalized.
Ichthyo points out that he's about to work out the details of some of his proposals, which are currently in "idea" state. Following that, most of the meeting is spent on discussing the details of two of these proposals.
Idea: Design the Render Nodes interface
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/DesignRenderNodesInterface[]
*Cehteh* points out that, as we are in the pre-alpha phase, interfaces may be growing on-demand. Later on, interface versions will be numbered. If needed, we could add a special "draft" or "experimental" tag, or, alternatively, use the common numbering scheme, where odd major version numbers denote the development line of an interface.
*Ichthyo* agrees, but adds he also meant "interface" in this proposal in a wider sense, like in "what do we need and require from a processing node". Knowing how generally Lumiera will handle the processing nodes while rendering helps him with defining and implementing the builder
__Conclusion__: "currently in work". For now, grow interfaces on demand.
Idea: Placement Metaphor used within the high-level view of Proc-Layer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/ProcPlacementMetaphor[]
In the course of the discussion, *Ichthyo* explains the rationale
* one common mechanism for sticking objects together and putting them into the session
* either specify the "placement"-parameters (time, output destination, track) directly, link to another object's parameters, or derive some or all of those values from the context (up the tree of tracks)
* ability to build a system of high-level media objects (clips, effects...) which re-adjust automatically on change
* extensible to handle or derive some parameters based on conditions and rules, e.g. for semi-automatic wiring of the output destination based on tags
*Joelholdsworth* is concerned that this proposal may go too far and tries to tie things together which aren't really connected. While basically it's no problem having the time position of a clip either absolute, or derived by a link to another object, he can't see a clear benefit of controlling sound pan or video layer order from the placement. Pan, for example, is just an parameter value or interpolated curve, similar to colour correction or gamma adjustment. For the gui, he points out, it's probably better to stick to the object metaphor, so start time, output, layer number or sound pan would be properties of the object.
But that's exactly what Ichthyo wants to avoid. Obviously, this would be the standard solution employed by most current editing apps, and works reasonably well in average cases. But he is looking for a solution which covers this standard case, but also doesn't get into the way when dealing with advanced compositing, working with spatial sound systems (Ambisonics, Wave Field Synthesis) or stereoscopic (3D) video.
On the whole, there is no conclusion yet. Certainly, this proposal needs more discussion, parts need to be defined much more clear (esp. the "Pro" arguments), maybe parts of the functionality should be separated out.
While in this discussion, several aspects of the cooperation of GUI and Proc layer are considered.
* it is not necessary to make all of the Placement proposal visible to the GUI (and the user). Proc layer may as well provide a simplyfied and hard wired API for the most common properties (layer index, pan) and only use this part of the Placement concept for building and wiring the nodes.
* the adjustment of objects linked together by a placement can be handled as follows:
. GUI notifies Proc of a position/parameter change of one object and gets immediate, synchronous feedback (OK or fail)
. Proc detects the other linked objects affected by the change and notifies GUI (both synchronous and asynchronous is possible) to update information regarding those objects
. GUI pulls the necessary properties by calling Proc on a per object base.
* as a rule of thumb, GUI <--> Proc is mostly synchronous, while Backend <--> GUI is often asynchronous, but there are exceptions from the rule
* we have general _parameters_, which are automatible. These are represented as _control data connections between the nodes_. We certainly don't want to represent some things in this way, though. For example, the in/out points of clips are fixed values.
* in Ichthyo's concept, the Placement doesn't itself provide such parameter values/sources, rather it can be used to _find_ or _derive_ parameter sources.
* the node graph is built bottom up, starting at the source, then via the effects attached locally to a clip, further on upwards (directed by the tree of tracks) to be finally connected via global busses to the output ports. Rendering pulls from these output ports.
* Joelholdsworth, Cehteh, Ichthyo and Rcbarnes agree that the plain _node-editor_ approach is problematic in the context of a NLE. It shows too much details and fails to capture the temporal aspect. We strive at having node-like features and flexibility, but rather within the timeline.
* especially, the topology of the node graph isn't constant over the whole timeline. But it's the job of the builder in the Proc layer to deal with these complexities, the user shouldn't be overwhelmed with all those details.
Next meeting
------------
* some people in europe complained that 21:00 UTC is too late, esp. with daylight saving
* there was the proposal to alternate between the current schedule, and sunday 16:00 UTC
* but Joel can't attend on sunday afternoon for now
* so we settle down on thursday, 16:30
Next meeting: *Thursday 3. July 2008 16:30 UTC*

94
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2008-07-06.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
2008-07-06 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
:Author: Teld
:Date: 2008-08-10
Participants
------------
* ichthyo
* cehteh
* jilt
* dmj726
* Teld
* \_nasa_
* alcarinque_
* MNO
* Wescotte
* weatherhead
Boilerplate
-----------
Organization of this meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* dmj726 intends to write the protocol
* ichtyo is chairman
* there is no agenda, so this is a freeform meeting
Leftovers from last meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are no leftovers
Introduction of Lumiera
-----------------------
Because there are quite some new participants, an introduction of the project Lumiera is given
There are 3 core devs:
* ichthyo: proc layer, render graph, in the middle, C++, he maintains scons
* cehteh: backend serving data (from filesystem and so on), manages threads, using C, Posix System programming, maintains autotools and git
* joelholdsworth: GUI in C++/Gtkm
Other people involved:
* rcbarnes: ui designer and coder
* raffa: web content
* Simav: gives a hand when and where he can
* Teld: web infrastructure
The foundations of the design are already done but a lot of detail needs to be worked out. cehteh and ichtyo provide a non exhaustive list.
cehteh:
* improvement of the testsuite (simple Bash)
* start of a worker thread manager (Posix knowledge required)
* start of the scheduler (some Posix, good C coding)
* runtime profiler (little but advanced Posix realtime programming job)
* review of code and documentation
* system administration
* setup of a build/test environment on the server
* setup and maintain postfix/dovecot by a mail administrator
ichtyo:
* asset management (keeping track of all media files, captures, clips, scenes)
* session loading saving and the issues of compound documents
* session structure related issues to be able to Import/Export/Connect via e.g. OSC (Open Sound Control) or JACK
* flesh out the more high level "edit operations" and the interface to UNDO
* Prolog integration after the first integration round has been reached. The Prolog interpreter will do some of the more advanced configuration (example: if effect XYZ is used, then deinterlace beforehand).
* integration with some sort of production support software (like Celtx)
cehteh emphasizes that Lumiera is an open project, so anybody can jump in where he sees fit as long as he communicates and acknowledges with the persons involved. ichtyo points out that the plugin structure is very important: anything that is not legally completely clean (proprietary), should be factored out into a sister project and be loaded as plugin.
Issues and questions that come up
---------------------------------
* handling of config errors.
When the configuration has a syntax error, in 90% of the cases there will be no possibility to do anything sane. Therefore, the config system will be built to log a warning and the user code does not need to care. The user just gets an alert and the application continues to work.
* scripting language.
There will be a scripting interface. ichtyo does not want scripts everywhere, only at well defined interfaces. That implies also that scripts cannot just do anything, only that what is permitted in a controlled way. The meeting agrees on that. cehteh wants one default language and proposes Lua: light, simple.
Other members suggestions: Python, Ruby, Scheme. However, Python and Ruby are very slow. Scheme has many variants.
* editing on small devices (eeePC)
Problem: video editors GUIs are some of the most elaborate and complicated GUIs. However, basic functions consist of only a few buttons. Proxy editing could be a solution. It is decided that it is not a primary goal now. First the basics have to be implemented.
* uWiki.
uWiki is the glue between a markup driver (Asciidoc) and revision control (git). Haserl with Bash is used now. Haserl appears to have problems with conditional includes. Its limits have been reached while prototyping. Lua could very well be a valid replacement. It will be investigated. PHP is rejected because it is not stable and suffers from serious security problems.
* \'musical\' timeline in bars and beats
The questions of syncing and linking things together are already on the core agenda: the so-called placement concept. Discussion is still going on, especially with the GUI developer joelholdsworth. See for detailed information: http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/ProcPlacementMetaphor[]
Next meeting
------------
The next meeting will be held Thursday, 7 August 19:00 UCT.

74
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2008-09-04.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
2008-09-03 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
:Author: Joel Holdsworth
:Date: 2008-09-05
Participants
------------
* ichthyo
* cehteh
* joelholdsworth
* Plouj
* thorwil
* wildhostile
Boilerplate
-----------
Organization of this meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* joel
* ichtyo is chairman
* there is no agenda, so this is a freeform meeting
Leftovers from last meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are no leftovers
Mailing Lists
-------------
* any improvements should be reported to cehteh
* need volunteers to be moderators. The only volunteers are cehteh and joelholdsworh_
* moderating the ML might not be that big a job - we might not get that much spam
* it's preferable to allow people to post to the mailing list even if they're not subscribed
* cehteh eventually wants the mailing list to interact with uwiki.
Plugin Interfaces
-----------------
* all plugin interaction, including manifest queries will happen through the system of interfaces
* this includes enumerating structured data within the plugins. It might sometimes be desirable to store this in a text file, but in this case still the list will be exported through the interfaces. If this were not the case, it would not be possible to make plugins which are wrappers of LADSPA plugins for example.
* For a lumiera plugin there is only one entry point, thats an interface itself which bootstraps all the other interfaces in that plugin.
Lib Dependancy Problems
-----------------------
* we've agreed to stick to one compatibility level: Debian/Lenny for perhaps up to 3 years from now
* others will be supported - RedHat etc.
Builds and Buildbot
-------------------
* ichthyo asks for help setting up a test/build server
* We now have build scripts based on scons and autotools.
* All current build systems have different problems.
* ichthyo will take care of the Debian packages for Lumiera and NoBug
Website Transition Plan
-----------------------
* There's lots of work to do on the website - transitioning etc. that the core developers don't want to get bogged down with. We need a web developer to volunteer.
* All the website stuff is stored in git, and works through Asciidoc, which is not difficult to learn.
Logo Design
-----------
* Postponed for the next meeting when joelholdsworth is around.
Next meeting
------------
The next meeting will be held Thursday, 2 oct 21:00 utc.
Comment
~~~~~~~
re "ichthyo asks for help setting up a test/build server" for "Debian"
see "Build Server" at http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/GuiBrainstorming?action=edit&editor=gui[]

232
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2008-10-10.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
2008-10-10 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
:Author: Ichthyo
:Date: 2008-10-15
Oct 10, 2008 on #lumiera 19:00 - 23:15 UTC +
__Participants__
* cehteh
* ichthyo
* joelholdsworth
* alcarinque
* !KenSentMe
* Plouj
* raffa
* thorwil
* Victor_Sigma
* wildhostile
organisational
--------------
Not much of a fixed agenda this time.
+
Agreement to start with the Logo discussion, as this is of general interest, followed by the design drafts and similar dev topics.
The Lumiera Logo
----------------
Summary of the situation: discussion regarding a logo for Lumiera is going on sporadically since quite some time. Several people from the community have made proposals. Also, there was discussion about the criteria a logo would have to fulfil. Especially the core devs raised the bar and required quite some professional level of design. On the contrary, several members of the community were concerned that such a demanding attitude will hinder creativity in a domain which is far off from coding. Moreover, many people complained they are really excited about Lumiera and strongly want to participate in some manner, but find it very difficult in the current phase of the project to give any valuable contribution.
This summer, one of the proposals by http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/2927333034_ac94be80ea_b.jpg[Leandro Ribeiro] gained some popularity and especially was embraced by two of the core devs, while the GUI core dev wasn't convinced and http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/JoelHoldsworth/LogoThoughts[explained] his reservation. Prior to this meeting some people joined a brainstorming session and came up with http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/Logos?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=combo.png[another design] compiled of several proposals, which could meet the acceptance of the core devs. At the same time, Raffa made an argument for conducting a public contest, similar to the one which gave us the name of Lumiera. The situation for Lumiera is somewhat special. Usually, the community builds when the product is already minimally usable; we can't have users for now, but we have a lot of prospective users.
Thus, while basically it would be possible for the core devs to shorten the process by just picking a design which is acceptable for all, maybe after augmenting it a little, several of the arguments articulated this far are in favour of a more formal decision by a contest:
* it would allow for a lot of people to really participate
* it could help to shape a general (graphic) style for Lumiera
* it could underpin the fact Lumiera indeed is a collaborative effort
* it doesn't mean additional work for the core devs on the whole
* it helps spreading the word
Then, there is some discussion about the requirements. The core devs are concerned to keep up some quality level, because there is the possibility for the community to embrace a design, but when Lumiera enters the area it is intended to do, the standards of comparison will be different. The GIMP logo can be quoted as a negative example here.
Conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~
There will be a Lumiera Logo contest.
* we should further discuss requirements on the Mailinglist until the end of the next week
* the '''deadline for submissions''' will be the next meeting (Nov 12 2008)
* then, after a pre-selection phase, the vote shall be conducted prior to the December meeting.
Some minimal technical requirements will be enforced:
* the basic sign fits a compact rather quadratic bounding box (like 4:3)
* easy to print on various media (on posters, t-shirts, ..)
* basically a shape, using only a small number of solid colours (web safe)
* should work on different backgrounds, esp. not requiring white background
* the design should scale from microscopic size (favicon) up to big posters
* vector graphic source is mandatory
Besides, we give some artistic guidelines
* it should be recognisable
* it should contain something like a sign, not just "Lumiera" in a fancy font
* it should not rely on transparencies, gradients and subtle shades,
* it should be viable, possibly work well in different presentation styles, able to be simplified as well as graphically augmented
Raffa volunteers to help organizing the contest and the voting.
Recurring Topics: design proposals
----------------------------------
Discussion of open http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess[design process] drafts.
Mistakes to avoid
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/MistakestoAvoid[Mistakes to avoid in the Lumiera Design]
We are carrying this one along since quite some time and we'd like to get rid of it, either by reworking it or by dropping it as-is. Because it contains a mixture of things
* we fully agree to 80% of the statements made there, but we think those statements are so very basic and self-evident as to be considered off-topic here. We are aware of the recurring problems with open source video editing. That's why we are here.
* the proposal draws conclusions on two technically substantial points, at which we don't agree. And it fails to provide sufficient (technically sound) arguments to prove these statements.
While it is certainly ''desirable'' to be cross-platform as much as possible and especially '''target Microsoft Windows''', we don't see much possibilities with today's mainstream technology to build an application which is as technologically demanding as a video editor is. We would end up developing two or even three sister applications, or we are forced to sacrifice performance for portability. When put up to face such options, we have a clear preference to concentrate on a really free and open platform.
While it is certainly ''desirable'' to make the application as robust as possible, we don't see how '''using multiple separate processes''' could help us with this goal ''without creating major scalability or performance problems'' due to the use of shared memory. And, yet more important: we don't share the basic assumption made in the proposal, namely that video processing is inherently dangerous. We think the basic algorithms involved are sufficiently well-known and understandable to implement them in a sound manner.
__Conclusion__: drop it
on the question of separate processes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The only practical solution would be to separate the GUI. Separating backend and proc-layer doesn't make much sense, technically speaking. We re-considered this question. Joelholdsworth (GUI) and Ichthyo (Proc-layer)prefer running the GUI in-process and to avoid the additional hassle with shared memory. Cehteh (backend) doesn't care for know and would like to re-discuss it as an option later on. This is somewhat similar to the possibility of running Lumiera distributed over the network, which is a goal, but not an immediate one.
Tag Clouds
~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/TagCloudsOnResources[Tag clouds on resources]
Tags are considered very important. Meanwhile, we have a much more advanced proposal, which superseeds this one: http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/DelectusShotEvaluator["Delectus"]
__Conclusion__: drop it
Overview of Lumiera Architecture
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/ArchitectureOverview[Architecture Overview]
The purpose of this drawing to give an first impression what subsystem is where and what the names mean. Since discussed last time, Ichthyo re-arranged the plugins as requested and added some details for the backend. Joelholdsworth points out that it's OK for him to show the GUI just as a single block here (and of course the GUI has much more internal structure). Cehteh adds that maintaining this drawing surely is a moving target, so we better remove the rendered image and just retain the textual description and link to the source (SVG), which is in GIT.
__Conclusion__: accept it, change the image to a link
EDLs as Meta-Clips
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/EDLsAreMetaClips[EDLs are meta-clips]
This is just a high-level proposal, which doesn't go into technical details of implementing nested EDLs. It just poses the question "do we want to treat nested EDLs as being meta-clip" -- which we do.
__Conclusion__: accepted
The Builder
~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/ProcBuilder[Builder in the Proc-Layer]
Similar to the previous one, this is a high-level proposal. It covers the fundamental approach Ichthyo takes within the Proc-Layer. Cehteh adds that he agrees to 98% and the remaining 2% are just matter of favour. Personally, he would have preferred one large graph which gets garbage collected (instead of the segmented graph)
__Conclusion__: accepted
High-level Model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/ProcHighLevelModel[Overview of the High-level model within the Proc-Layer]
Cehteh queries if this shouldn't be better moved over to the documentation? He is fine with the contents, but it seems to be a bit voluminous for a design proposal. Ichthyo asks to leave it there just for now, as he feels it still needs review.
__Conclusion__: leave it for now, maybe retract it from the design proposals and file it as documentation?
Lua scripting language
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/ScriptingLanguage[use Lua as required scripting language]
All core devs agree with this decision. Joelholdsworth points out that he is fine with Lua, just he didn't want to write the GUI in it. Ichthyo adds that Lua is probably the best choice from today's mainstream scripting languages, because it is very lightweight. He further points out, that having Lua as ''required'' scripting language doesn't rule out using other popular languages (Python, Ruby) for scripting. Just they aren't required for running Lumiera. Cehteh will have a look at the details as soon as possible, but has currently other more urgent things in the queue. (Plouj shows interest to help here)
__Conclusion__: accepted
Time Handling
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/time_handling[time handling]
A long standing proposal; meanwhile we've decided to build on GAVL, which is now reflected in the text of this proposal too. Ichthyo points out he changed the rounding rule in this proposal from "mathematical" to "floor (x+0.5)". Cehteh asks if we should use a thin library layer on top of gavl, to centralize all the time calculations. There seems to be agreement that this should actually be done ''on demand.'' Joelholdsworth sais sometimes he'd prefer to have a simple raw type to represent time, because it makes calculations much easier. Ichthyo adds that internally (within the layers, but not on interfaces) one could use a thin C++ wrapper with overloaded operators, which is default-convertible to gavl_time.
__Conclusion__: accepted
Note: the proposed rigid testsuite for time handling is necessary only when we introduce a wrapper...
Interface naming convention
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See the design proposal http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess/InterfaceNamespaces[Interface Namespaces]. While working on the plugin loader, '''Cehteh''' and '''nasa''' did some brainstorming about a plugin naming scheme and how to get unique interface identifiers. The idea is to use a distinctive prefix, like a condensed organisation domain or email name, or a GPG fingerprint or even a UID, followed by the interface namespace hierarchy. These would be combined into a single identifier (valid C name). The intention is to get non-ambiguous names, yet avoiding the need of a central registry.
__Conclusion__: accepted
general Topics
Config System
-------------
'''cehteh''' landed the first version of this subsystem and asked for review and testing. Currently it's "work with no progress", but it is basically usable (you can get values, you can set values by environment variables, but you can't persist). It should be augmented on demand, e.g. by adding the support for more value types (value types are a hint how to parse, and link the parsed value to a given C type).
Use of Namespaces
-----------------
Currently there is no clear uniform rule regarding namespaces use. *Joelholdsworth* places his code within lumiera::gui and below. He points out that external libs like Cairo, GTK, GLib will bring in their hierarchies and all of Lumiera should comply and put anything below a lumiera:: root. On the contrary, *Ichthyo* deliberately moved his implementation code away from the central lumiera:: interface hierarchy into shallow namespaces and avoids nesting. He argues that having all code below lumiera:: effectively makes this namespace global or forces it to be void of any function; rather he'd prefer to import every interface explicitly into the implementation namespace. *Cehteh* argues that having a global lumiera::, even if empty, would mark a general claim and stand for the uniformity of the project. Generally, there should be some correspondence between folders and namespaces.
No conclusion yet, to be discussed further.
Interface Definition Language
-----------------------------
In his work on the plugin loader, '''Cehteh''' created a first draft how to export an interface, and calls for review. An example can be found in http://www.lumiera.org/gitweb?p=lumiera/ct;a=blob;f=tests/backend/test-interfaces.c;h=fb1c4d30a34414767a313d24df60e679c96ad2a7;hb=7323114e77348995ccaf03417136aef7ee332776[tests/backend/test-interfaces.c]
An interface is a list of "slots" mapping functions. The interface descriptor is itself realised as interface, an thus can be versioned, extended and specialised. By use of some glue code and macros we create a simple Interface Definition Language
* after exporting a header with the C interface, including the types to be used...
* LUMIERA_INTERFACE_DECLARE creates an interface description (i.e. the official interface)
* implementing such an interface can be done in 3 major ways
* LUMIERA_INTERFACE_INSTANCE creates an instance on-the-fly (e.g. for descriptors)
* LUMIERA_EXPORT for defining a table of functions/interfaces to export from the core
* LUMIERA_PLUGIN for defining an interface table for functions located within a dynlib module (plugin)
* besides, with LUMIERA_INTERFACE_INLINE you can create a function on-the-fly while LUMIERA_INTERFACE_MAP maps onto an existing function directly
The plugin loading system cares for mapping the given implementation function to the interface slots. Interfaces from the core need to be registered before they can be used, while for plugins this is done automatically on loading the module. The client code later just calls {{{interface_open()}}} and {{{interface_close()}}} where it doesn't matter anymore if the invoked function is in the core or loaded from an dynlib (plugin); loader, registry and/or plugin-DB shall manage it transparently.
Version numbering starts with 1 and uses minor version numbers for compatible changes and major version numbers for everything that breaks existing asumptions. Version number zero is reserved for experimental work and per definition always the most recent version number.
The system is designed to be very flexible and extensible, but this foundation really needs thorough review.
Joelholdworth expresses some concern regarding the UIDs in octal notation used within the interface description. Cehteh explains they never need to be specified by client code. They are just distinctive IDs and provided for some special case within the plugin loader / serializer. He plans to provide a simple tool which automatically replaces a $LUIDGEN with such a bitstring. The octal notation was chosen, because it is the most compact albeit portable notation possible in C source code.
Conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~
looks good, agreement by all core devs.
+
Should be reviewed and investigated in detail to find any hidden problems.
Next meeting
------------
There were some problems with the meeting schedule. Using the first week of month seems to be problematic. We'll try with second wednesday...
The next meeting is scheduled for '''Wednesday Nov 12 2008 19:30 UTC''' at #lumiera

72
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2008-12-10.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
2008-12-10 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
:Author: Teld
:Date: 2009-01-12
Dec 10, 2008 on #lumiera 20:15 - 00:45 UTC +
__Participants__
* cehteh
* ichthyo
* joelholdsworth
* Teld
* tchy
* Divinespectrum
* raffa
* kirk
* Victorsigma
* pedro
* thorwil
The Lumiera Logo
----------------
The logo contest is a great success: http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/Logos[105 entries]. Everyone agrees that a preselection has to be made. Every attendee will have a look at the entries and selects 5 for the preselection list. Finally, 21 logos are selected. Together with a nice collage they are http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/Logos/Selection[presented] so that anyone online can vote for his/her favorite one. Voting will be possible from 20 december until 31 december at midnight.
Recurring Topics
----------------
Discussion of open http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess[design process] drafts.
EDL vs Sequence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There has been a long discussion on the ML about the term EDL. In the end almost agreed or was at least ok with the Sequence instead of EDL. The Sequence will be the building block and is a collection of media objects and a tree of tracks. A discussion about the UML showed in [wiki:self:../DesignProcess/TimelineSequenceOutput Project, Timeline(s), Sequence(s) and Output] and the relation of Timeline and Sequence follows.
__Conclusion__: the name Sequence will be used instead of EDL
Interfaces between layers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ichtyo explains that the idea is that between layers only the C Language interfaces of the interface system are used. Wrappers have been made so that a convenient C++ interface is available.
Threads
~~~~~~~
The UI will mostly run on a single thread, i.e. gtk_main will run in this GUI thread and when it terminates, the GUI is "done" and signals back that it is done. Cehteh points out that really hard working threads should be managed by the scheduler in the backend. All agree that we should avoid thread cancellation
General Topics
--------------
Video format
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kirk asks to what video format footage has to be converted so that it can be used in Lumiera. Ichtyo and cehteh point out that Lumiera will not be nailed down to one single format. A small number of formats that permit precise editing will be supported. Other formats may be available through plugins. The working horse is gmerlin, especially libgavl. Essentially Lumiera will try to figure out a conversion path in a lossless way.
Knowledge base
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kirk has already collected lots of information on video formats, conversion from one into the other, formats supported out of the box by Quicktime, Windows Media Player and so on. The developers agree that this is much needed. Kirk proposes to help in this area.
Next meeting
------------
The next meeting will be at Wednesday 14 jan 21:00 UTC

122
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2009-01-14.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
2009-01-14 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
:Author: Raffaella_Traniello_and_Goibhniu
:Date: 2009-02-25
Jan 14, 2009 on #lumiera starting 20:00 UTC
__Participants__
* cehteh
* ichthyo
* joelholdsworth
* raffa
* goibhniu
* Teld
* nikola_
* thorwil
* SimAV
* raevol
The Lumiera Logo - Workflow and GUI
-----------------------------------
Everyone is pretty happy with the results of the logo contest. The logo still needs some refinements, especially:
* the font
* angle of view
* single logo or multiple logos based on a theme (dynamic logo)
Logo work discussion has started on Mailing list but it is dying out.
Workflow and GUI discussion has already started on Mailing list. Keeping it effective and useful demands core devs time and energy.
Conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~
Two groups are created, each of these have someone responsible to bring them forward.
The group nudger is some director/moderator who keeps it going and nudges the people constantly, leading the discussion, not making the decisions alone. This 'supervisor' doesn't need to be someone to do the work of that group, but someone who can spend some efforts and time to coordinate it.
Work discussion will proceed on the Mailing List but following the directions stated during the IRC meetings. +
Messages will have [ARTWORK] or [LOGO] or [WORKFLOW] in the subject. [[BR]] Groups can schedule IRC meetings separated from the monthly meetings that are meant for general organization.
Group 1 [WORKFLOW]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
. director/supervisor: nikola_ (Nikola Duper)
Unlike other software where the GUI dictates the capabilities of the backend, Lumiera is being built from the bottom up to the GUI. So the foundations are built first to make the things accessible independently to the layout. +
The GUI layout is determined by the people who code it. This workflow group will be counsellor for the coding devs.[[BR]] The core dev responsible for the GUI is joelholdsworth (Joel Holdsworth).[[BR]] One of the group goals is to make the dev point of view dialogate with the editor point of view.
The group studies how a professional editor uses a NLE, defines the key-features and the main qualities (rock solid, simple, support for the main video formats, usable,...), define the static mainstream functionality as opposed to optional experimental ideas and funny widgets, discuss implementability in Lumiera with the devs. +
It discuss about UI design, to ease the pro workflow, to improve usability for amateurs and discoverability for newcomers. [[BR]] It thinks about ergonomics.
Group 2 [ARTWORK]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
. director/supervisor: raffa (Raffaella Traniello)
The group discuss about logo, themes, the look and feel...
Getting the 'non-coders' community to help
------------------------------------------
goibhniu proposes an issue tracker.
The documentation needs love: it's currently horribly scattered all around. +
All the content needs to be converted to asciidoc and to the git repo at lumiera.org.[[BR]] Waiting for uWiki, the site will be in asciidoc+git [[BR]] The site needs a structure or other means to increase discoverability of all our information[[BR]] goibhniu proposes organizing a "sprint" to help get people involved and set a date for it (documentation migration/organisation)
Conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~
* goibhniu volunteers to set up Trac.
* raevol volunteers to maintain it.
* The link:AsciiDoc[] Day idea will be discussed at the next meeting.
Possible GUI-Integration: Display a frame?
------------------------------------------
There was some discussion about the need for a component which does the timing and communicates with the scheduler and where it should sit in the stack.
For example: a render controler would be `for (frame i=0; i < end; ++i){pull_frame_without_timing_constraints(i);}` and a player would be the same with timing constraints and possibly lower quality. The GUI just has to remember that a play button is pushed, and that a certain instance of the play control is associated with a certain playback task in the backend. It was decided that this doesn't need to be resolved at the moment and requires further discussion and planning. It was felt that device dependnet things shouldn't be in the backend since it may one day run remotely as a frame server. It may need to sit between the gui and the backend. It was noted that the backend will run on constraints rather than ticks. For now the focus is on getting a single frame into the gui and there will be time to flesh out final interfaces later.
The devs agreed to meet up on Saturday to get the latest version up and running.
http://www.lumiera.org/gitweb?p=lumiera/ct;a=blob;f=src/common/guifacade.cpp;h=7f781845ad79b4a3e2cd820b96b87f5e702a80d3;hb=8e89506d289f3986af133493a40e3705b7919c87#l64[]
(The thread shall be forked from within the GUI code not from the facade)
This was discussed and ichthyo has already pushed a new cleaned up state and resolved most of the dependency problems with the liblumiera. It raised the question: do we prefer a UI facade to a GUI facade or do we want an extra script facade someday?
It was discussed whether joelholdsworth should wait for cehteh to make a playback interface or use a dummy one for now. Cehteh wasn't ready to commit to a final interface yet but felt it was important to acknowledge the type of bidirectional interface that would be required. Icythyo has been using the link:GuiNotification[] as a dummy to implement an interface and get things working with loading the GUI plugin. Joelholdsworth already has displayer code which uses XVideo and falls back to GDK. It tells the buffer the address instead of being integrated with gavl, so cehteh will be able to hand it the address when ready. At the moment the buffers contain RGB (not gavl frames or anything). For the simple test joelholdsworth will need a buffer with RGB data and some metadata which cehteh and joelholdsworth planned to flesh out in the near future.
# Errors, Assertions, Checks, Dev- and Release-Builds
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A new Nobug is nearly ready with new documentation (cehteh). The error handler has been improved, as announced on the ML. Cehteh emphasised the importance of using nobug everywhere and not `#if DEBUG`:
DEBUG is not a standard C/C++/buildsystem defined macro when it works its just coincidence but NDEBUG is standard. Neither does such code use nobug facilities nor respect nobug build levels.
in new nobug you can do:
NOBUG_IF_ALPHA(
alpha code here
)
it's the same for BETA RELEASE and there's a NOT variant for each but even then that should be avoided and higher level nobug facilities should be used instead.
(http://www.lumiera.org/nobug.html)[]
beta and release builds shall be possible with nobug soon .. waiting for metta to integrate the new test.sh
test.sh with regex is awesome because you can test output which contains no exact things like addresses, version numbers, times
and running the testsuite under valgrind works properly now
Workflow/Interface
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ichthyo expressed the importance of not having dedicated kinds of tracks, but to be able to use any track for anything (audio, video etc.). This will require more work in the proc layer. Tracks are also not just layered but are trees which can fold. Any clip can contain N streams of various kinds. When a clip contains video and audio streams it still occupies just one track and the system automatically connects the audio to an audio bus etc. but the user is free to split off the audio as an independent clip and treat it separately from the video. The plan is to have various kinds of links between clips. This basic idea will need further refinement and consideration by the workflow team (Nikola et. al.) e.g. the user will need some way to direct the sound to a different bus even though it may be in a compound clip. By default all the video should be layered in the order of the tracks and a user should be able to say "don't mix the audio from track 4 and its child tracks directly to master but route it to the music subgroup". This is where the tree of tracks plays an important role because each track with its children forms a group.
There was further discussion on the general aims, objectives and focus of Lumiera and the reasoning behind them. Integration with control surfaces, jog wheels, sliders etc. should also be considered for the workflow. Nikola expressed the importance of stability and a simple and clean UI.
Next meeting
------------
Usually meetings are the second Wednesday each month on #lumiera at Freenode. The next meeting will be on Feb 11 - 20:00 UTC
Core dev's IRC meetings
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cehteh proposes a recurrent core dev meeting, more frequent than the monthly meeting since there is the a lot of stuff ahead that needs communication.

118
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2009-09-09.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
2009-09-09 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
Raffaella_Traniello_and_Hermann_Voßeler <prg@ichthyostega.de>
Sep 9, 2009 on +#lumiera+ +
^20:00 - 22:30 UTC^
.Participants
- cehteh
- ichthyo
- joelholdsworth
- andrewjames
- daniieel
- hermanr
- liveD
- raffa
- SimAV
Point 1: FrOSCon
----------------
Our participation to the conference was a success. We met other video
developers and people interested in Lumiera.
It has been a meeting opportunity for the community, it produced good and
reusable propaganda material (about 100 flyers distributed).
This success wouldn't be possible without a lot of people helping. +
So lets say: *Thank you all*!
We plan to be there again next year with another Lumiera meeting (possibly
all the 3 core devs present). _Ichthyo_ consideres to do a dedicate talk
(in German).
Participation as a group to other possible events has been considered for +
(in order of interest):
LAC, Piksel, OVC, Piksel Summer camp, Linuxtag, FSCONS.
To improve visibility _liveD_ proposes to extend the project also on the
new social network like facebook. +
The proposal is discussed but doesn't find supporters.
Point 2: Funding
----------------
Preparing for FrOSCon had some costs, paid by the people working in
Lumiera. Ideally, _cehteh_ says, people working on Lumiera should not have
to pay for working on it, no matter who pays.
He proposes to make a project partnership with FFIS (a German non-profit
organisation for founding free software).
That means we could officially collect donations through FFIS (people
donate to FFIS, to free software in general or specifically to Lumiera).
That could work out well for specific scopes, like covering travel,
lodging and diet for developer gatherings or for exhibition material and
server.
The proposal is accepted. _Cehteh_ will contact FFIS to propose them a partnership.
If later on there will be funding for development (not just covering expenses)
that would require a different approach and special communication with the
community.
_daniieel_ proposes to put a price to each request in "buglist". +
The proposal is discussed and dismissed.
Point 3: Website
----------------
The news in the homepage makes the project look alive. But this is not
enough to communicate the state of the Lumiera development. Two
solutions are proposed:
* The website needs to be reorganized and made accessible. andrewjames
volunteers to work on it.
* Quarterly development news will be published in the devel section of the
website. The devs will post drafts to the mailing list and encourage the
other devs to add their informations. Then someone shall aggregate this
and make a news webpage. That creates a new task: help collecting the
news and write them together.
The devs will communicate their achievements more often in small steps
to the mailing list
_raffa_ proposes monthly news on the homepage with more broad topics
(development, community, openvideo). +
The proposal gets no interest.
Point 4: Ticket Query clean-up
------------------------------
Trac allows for creation of custom ticket queries. We've accumulated quite some
custom reports, and _cehteh_ asks if some of them can be dropped (Ticket #225).
_Ichthyo_ points out that he uses some reports frequently, and considers some
others nice-to-have. Finally it turns out that only Report #5 isn't used by
anyone and can be dropped.
_Cehteh_ points out that the http://issues.lumiera.org/tags[TracTags] macro
is a convenient feature -- for example it allows to tag tickets by required skill.
Point 5: Coding
---------------
_Cehteh_ finished a first stable NoBug release and intends to give uWiki a boost
in the next weeks. _Ichthyo_ worked on a command frontend usable at the GUI/Proc
interface; in the next time, there will be some integration work to be done
together with _Joelholdsworth_ to get the GUI and high-level model connected.
A short discussion about the relevance of uWiki for Lumiera follows. Indeed,
it takes away some developer power, and _Joelholdsworth_ is concerned about that,
as the project is a bit underpowered generally. _Cehteh_ on the contrary considers
building a suitable (distributed) infrastructure as an important part of the
project.

208
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2011-03-09.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
Lumiera Developers Meeting
==========================
:Author: Stefan Kangas
:Date: 2011-03-09
March 9, 2011 on +#lumiera+ +
^20:00 GMT - 23:30 GMT^
//Menu: label 2011-03-09
__Participants__
* Christian Thaeter (cehteh)
* Francesco Siddi (fsiddi)
* Hermann Voßeler (ichthyo)
* Odin Hørthe Omdal (Velmont)
* Raffaella Traniello (raffa)
* Stefan Kangas (skangas)
The New Website
---------------
The new website is finally online.
How do we proceed with the graphical layout?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
21:37 <fsiddi> the template code is not ready yet
21:37 <fsiddi> and there are some incorrect uses of tags in the current one
21:37 <fsiddi> so i will go on coding a static html layout
21:38 <fsiddi> then will submit it to your critique and then we can make a template out of it
...
21:50 <ichthyo> fsiddi: I liked the way you provided a slightly larger content area
for the tutorial part
image:{img}/meetings/2011-03-09-mockup_dev_1.jpg["Website Proposal Mockup number 3", width=128, link="{img}/meetings/2011-03-09-mockup_dev_1.jpg"]
image:{img}/meetings/2011-03-09-mockup_dev_2.jpg["Website Proposal Mockup number 2", width=128, link="{img}/meetings/2011-03-09-mockup_dev_2.jpg"]
Discussion about the IFrame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only serious alternative to IFrames seems to be SSI, since we want to keep
generating pages with asciidoc, and not have to regenerate the entire website
just because one page changed.
Conclusion was that we will stick with IFrames for now and change later when/if
that becomes a problem.
Old stuff in the repository
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a folder /attic on the website.
This information is supposed to be merged with the rest of the website, and then
deleted from its current location. This work is on-going and considered a
"background task".
IRC Logs
--------
A discussion was brought up about how to handle IRC logs.
For privacy reasons we do not want to save them routinely in public
locations. If we put them on the web they will most probably be kept by Google
until the sun burns out.
*robots.txt* might be respected by Google or not. Surely some other search
engines will not respect it. Private logs or other logs not publically available
are fine though.
22:40 <cehteh> well ... IRC should *not* be for persistent documentation .. we shall
force/educate ourself to document things (and decisions) properly, irc
should be volatile
...
22:41 <ichthyo> in the past, sometimes we had very "contentful" dicussions
22:41 <ichthyo> in that cases we just saved a transcript
...
22:44 <ichthyo> so personally I prefer to make transcripts of the *really* contentful
discussions and put them in the public documentation
22:44 <ichthyo> "transcript" means cleaned up irc log
22:44 <cehteh> yes
22:45 <cehteh> so for meetings we should prolly do that
22:47 <cehteh> not further edited but just leave all join/parts/noise and silly
comments out
22:47 <cehteh> (and also rants and stuff)
22:48 <cehteh> only conclusions and most important arguments shall stay
22:48 <cehteh> maybe reorder it a bit as it happens that we talk about 2 things at the
same time
22:48 <cehteh> but also not too much work on it
22:49 <cehteh> and more importantly: document decisions and proposals in a more
offical way: that is 'rfc'
22:49 <skangas_> Agreed. It is more important to preserve information in an accessible
way for the future than focusing on mundane details like
join/part/order/ranting etc.
22:50 <skangas_> This means I personally always prefer shorter summaries of a
discussion to IRC logs, given that they do not leave anything
important out.
VoIP discussions over Mumble?
-----------------------------
There seems to be link:http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/12_hours_of_talking/[ongoing discussions]. on using VoIP more in Debian GNU/Linux.
It was decided that while the idea is nice, it will not be used for developer
meetings. We might use it for developer discussions outside meetings if we feel
the need though. This will probably be more common as the number of developers
increase.
Also, the point was brought up that GNU Emacs has really nice support for
several people sharing the same session. Everyone gets their own point, and with
some hacks it is even possible to color them differently. This needs to be done
on an untrusted remote server though -- Emacs can do anything and it is thus
highly insecure.
Version numbering
-----------------
Hermann has written an rfc for version numbers.
23:19 <cehteh> so in my words: we will have a usuall major.minor.patch for releases
23:20 <cehteh> and major+1~develtag for devel snapshots
23:20 <cehteh> where develtag is a timestamp
23:20 <ichthyo> and we *could* make a stream of development versions
23:21 <cehteh> YYYYMMDD should suffice
23:21 <cehteh> or maybe just monotonic increading from 1
23:21 <ichthyo> well... optional suffix+ number
23:21 <ichthyo> for the rare cases that you roll two releases a day
...
23:20 <ichthyo> and the third idea of my proposal: *not* use major.minor.patch before 1.0
23:24 <ichthyo> i.e. in the whole alpha... beta range
23:24 <ichthyo> we just do 0.01 0.02 ... 0.99
23:25 <skangas_> Does it go without saying that minor versions can go on above 1.9.0
to 1.10.0 etc?
23:25 <ichthyo> yes, I didn't mention that, but thats important
23:26 <ichthyo> its not nice, and usually you get a major first, but it can happen
23:27 <ichthyo> so i'd say, we have discussed it now, we could comment on it and then
revisit it next time (and maybe decide on the proposal then)
23:27 <skangas_> Do we want a stable version and a development version?
23:28 <skangas_> e.g. 1.0 is stable and 1.1 is unstable
23:28 <skangas_> I am thinking about the scheme that wine and linux is using.
23:28 <cehteh> i think linux won a lot with abadon this odd/even practice
23:28 <ichthyo> regarding stable versions
23:28 <ichthyo> personally, I don't like that idea
23:29 <skangas_> cehteh: I did not know they had abandoned it.
23:29 <cehteh> skangas: linux dont use that anymore
23:29 <cehteh> since 2.6 years ago
23:29 <ichthyo> because they tend to rot
23:29 <skangas_> ichthyo: The stable versions?
23:29 <cehteh> you just make a release and done .. everything after that is for the
next version
23:29 <ichthyo> yes
23:29 <cehteh> the only thing to discuss is how you count there
23:30 <ichthyo> also, it is more in line with the "extreme programming" style
23:30 <ichthyo> i.e. don't do too disruptive changes
23:30 <cehteh> if you want 'pre' or 'rc'
23:30 <ichthyo> but rather refactor often
23:30 <skangas_> OK.
23:31 <ichthyo> there is onre concern though
23:31 <ichthyo> there *needs* to be some stability then
23:31 <cehteh> releases get only bugfixes and *maybe* you can declare some release as
LTS ... but for lumiera i would think really hard about that and likely
deny that
23:31 <ichthyo> because people are working with the software
23:31 <ichthyo> but we want to have that with our compatibility scheme
23:31 <cehteh> (our interface system should provide backward compatibility)
23:31 <ichthyo> yes
23:31 <ichthyo> but anyway, it *might* turn out that we fail with that promise
23:32 <ichthyo> and then we'll have to reconsider a "stable" line
23:32 <cehteh> so maintaining some LTS while having another development branch will
suck developer resources
23:32 <ichthyo> yes
23:32 <ichthyo> so I'd really try hard to avoid that
23:33 <cehteh> well a stable line yes ... that is 'stable' until the next stable
release is there .. and then 'maintained' as in adding important
bugfixes for some (but not excessive) time
23:33 <cehteh> we need to care for a stable for sure
23:33 <ichthyo> indeed, but it shouldnt digress too much from the active development
23:33 <cehteh> but we dont want some really old release to get permanent updates and
care because we declared it as LTS
23:33 <skangas_> ichthyo: Is your RFC open to editing/additions?
23:34 <ichthyo> yes
23:34 <ichthyo> please go ahead, just add comments etc.
23:34 <cehteh> use the rfc.sh comment function :)
23:34 <skangas_> I was just thiking about writing this down in some way, that we
specifically do not want this.
23:23 <cehteh> also do we want 'rc' releases?
23:23 <cehteh> or do we just declare certain devel snapshots as rc (i like the later)
23:23 <ichthyo> yes, thats what I'd prefer too
23:24 <cehteh> devel snapshots should be automatic buildable by builddrone
23:25 <cehteh> I would like to make builddrone an automatic staging system
23:25 <cehteh> add some 'rules' there ..
23:26 <cehteh> if build and testsuite succeeds and test-install works and latests
commit doesnt contain WIP: then stage a devel snapshot
23:27 <cehteh> (eventually or maybe we might even put tests/bugs there which prevent
certain staging actions, finally all integration and complete releases
could be automatized)
23:26 <cehteh> remember in test.sh i reserved the 90-99* area for 'bugs'
23:26 <cehteh> we may put some blocking tests there which prevent staging
Next meeting
------------
The next meeting will be at Wednesday April 13 20:00 UTC.

642
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2011-04-13.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,642 @@
2011-04-13 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
:Author: Ichthyostega
:Date: 2011-4-14
April 13, 2011 on #lumiera 20:00 - 23:47 UTC +
__Participants__
* cehteh
* ichthyo
* fsiddi
* skangas
_Protocol written by Ichthyo_
.organisational
- IRC meeting summaries will be moved into the main Git tree, below 'doc/devel'
- mostly shortened and tidied IRC logs, plus summary of conclusions \+ decisions
- ``winter quarterly coding news'': this time just paste _Ichthyo's_ contribution into the website
- the next ``coding news'' probably in May?
New Website Page Layout
-----------------------
_Francesco Siddi_ has augmented his Layout proposal and already built up two page templtes to
cover most of the layout needs of the Lumiera website and documentation resources. However,
some points with the code generated by Asciidoc turned out to be problematic.
In a link:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.lumiera.general/2330[message preceeding the meeting],
today _ichthyo_ highlighted some general concerns which might need further discussion and maybe
a decision.
utilising horizontal space
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Resolution of displays has been largely increased, especially on desktop computers, with
a tendency towards ``widescreen'' aspect ratio. While, on the other hand, text content
is still mostly vertically oriented. This leads to the question how to make use
of this additional space in horizontal direction, while still also supporting
the not-so large displays.
.-- Discussion of details --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-13 22:55:35] <ichthyo> so my idea was just to let us discuss how we could use that additional space, when its available
[2011-04-13 22:56:08] <ichthyo> I mean, just lets discuss open ended -- what possibilities do we see for that?
[2011-04-13 22:55:42] <cehteh> if the screen is wide enough they should make 'some' use of it .. maybe just using biggier fonts
[2011-04-13 22:56:46] <ichthyo> using 2 columns would be one possibility, but that is tough and demading to get to work properly
[2011-04-13 22:57:02] <fsiddi> there are basically 2 ways
[2011-04-13 22:57:18] <fsiddi> 1 is to use liquid layout
[2011-04-13 22:57:49] <ichthyo> liquit layout means, that the content area just expands, right?
[2011-04-13 22:57:56] <fsiddi> like wikipedia yes
[2011-04-13 22:58:14] <cehteh> http://slashdot.org/ scales reasonable well with different screen sizes
[2011-04-13 22:58:52] <ichthyo> wikipedia is also an interesting example, because they use lots of floating block content
[2011-04-13 22:58:57] <ichthyo> tables, images, additional infos
[2011-04-13 22:59:20] <fsiddi> yes the mediawiki software is very powerful
[2011-04-13 22:59:38] <fsiddi> another *very* well done documentation is http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/navigation/
[2011-04-13 22:59:52] <fsiddi> (from a design point of view)
[2011-04-13 22:59:54] <fsiddi> :)
[2011-04-13 23:00:01] * cehteh likes (or rather demands) that browser zoom (ctrl-+) works well on the lumiera page
---------------------
using a »liquid layout«?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.-- liquid ⟺ not liquid --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-13 23:05:14] <fsiddi> ok, so apart from that, the discussion is liquid vs not liquid
[2011-04-13 23:05:31] <ichthyo> and also what possibilities there are
[2011-04-13 23:05:43] <fsiddi> ichthyo: what do you mean?
[2011-04-13 23:05:56] <ichthyo> e.g. just expanding the content area
[2011-04-13 23:06:04] <ichthyo> or also using a script to increase the font
[2011-04-13 23:06:13] <ichthyo> or using floating blocks in the sidebar
[2011-04-13 23:06:38] <ichthyo> (asciidoc has several elements which could float into the sidebar)
[2011-04-13 23:07:09] <ichthyo> and if we know that the site layout supports that, then we'll likely make use of that
when writing documentation
[2011-04-13 23:07:10] <cehteh> when you have a page with a lot (many sideful) of content then a side menu
(also footer/header) must be floating or can be left out
[2011-04-13 23:07:31] <cehteh> there is no point in having a side-menu only visible for 3% of the content
[2011-04-13 23:07:45] <ichthyo> ah yes, thats another point, i.e. how to treat the vertical scrolling
[2011-04-13 23:08:07] <ichthyo> it is possible e.g. to have the scrollbars on the content area
[2011-04-13 23:08:08] <cehteh> imo we need 2 classes of pages .. small ones and huge ones
[2011-04-13 23:08:22] <cehteh> scrollbars inside are inconvinient
[2011-04-13 23:08:18] <fsiddi> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:Manual
[2011-04-13 23:08:37] <fsiddi> it has scrolling sidebar
[2011-04-13 23:09:08] <cehteh> but with js again
[2011-04-13 23:09:19] <cehteh> i seen that as CSS only solution i think
[2011-04-13 23:09:37] <cehteh> otherwise yes, thats an option ..
[2011-04-13 23:10:02] <ichthyo> cehteh: yes, you can get that just with CSS
[2011-04-13 23:10:23] <fsiddi> actually you need js to trigger the class to make it floating
[2011-04-13 23:10:27] <cehteh> back to my statement, do you agree that we need this 2 kinds of classes?
[2011-04-13 23:10:36] <fsiddi> i don't think so
[2011-04-13 23:10:42] * ichthyo neither
[2011-04-13 23:10:56] <fsiddi> cehteh, i think it will overcomplicate the backend
[2011-04-13 23:11:03] <ichthyo> because I guess 90% of the documentation pages will get into the "large, much content" category
[2011-04-13 23:11:05] <cehteh> really?
[2011-04-13 23:11:12] <cehteh> yes
[2011-04-13 23:11:19] <ichthyo> so we *do* have two templates already
[2011-04-13 23:11:22] <fsiddi> i think it's better to keep it flexible
[2011-04-13 23:11:26] <cehteh> and does this documentation need a sidebar?
[2011-04-13 23:11:26] <fsiddi> yes
[2011-04-13 23:11:35] <fsiddi> we use 2 templates
[2011-04-13 23:12:16] <ichthyo> one is the "top level", with the horizontal menu
[2011-04-13 23:12:24] <cehteh> this boils down to one for the general pages and one for documentation
[2011-04-13 23:12:25] <ichthyo> and the second one is the documentation template, right
[2011-04-13 23:12:44] <ichthyo> while those "general" pages are a handful
[2011-04-13 23:12:45] <fsiddi> yes
[2011-04-13 23:12:55] <cehteh> yes
[2011-04-13 23:12:56] <ichthyo> while the documentation pages will go into the hundred and more
[2011-04-13 23:14:08] <ichthyo> so I draw the conclusion, that the documentation pages are optimised for much content
[2011-04-13 23:14:19] <fsiddi> yes
[2011-04-13 23:13:30] <cehteh> ok .. settled
...
[2011-04-13 23:13:54] <fsiddi> i propose to keep the layout not liquid also in that pages
[2011-04-13 23:14:35] <fsiddi> if you prefer i can make them larger
[2011-04-13 23:14:49] <fsiddi> but for the moment i'd like to keep the same width
[2011-04-13 23:14:48] <ichthyo> what are the problems you see with a liquid layout?
[2011-04-13 23:15:08] <fsiddi> mostly a readability issue
[2011-04-13 23:15:29] <fsiddi> if a page is too large, it's unreadable
[2011-04-13 23:15:39] <ichthyo> well, I second that statement
[2011-04-13 23:15:53] <ichthyo> if a page goes over a certain amount of characters per line
[2011-04-13 23:16:10] <fsiddi> ichthyo: that's what i mean
[2011-04-13 23:15:53] <cehteh> can you scale the font on huge screens with css?
[2011-04-13 23:16:10] <ichthyo> cehteh: not in css2
[2011-04-13 23:16:15] <cehteh> ok
[2011-04-13 23:16:24] <ichthyo> java script would work
[2011-04-13 23:16:42] <cehteh> i opt for a reasonable big max size as already proposed
[2011-04-13 23:16:47] <ichthyo> well, but if we manage to limit those number of characters per line
[2011-04-13 23:16:55] <fsiddi> i can implement that
[2011-04-13 23:16:58] <cehteh> but dont make this too small
[2011-04-13 23:17:05] <ichthyo> then liquid layout might be more reasonable
[2011-04-13 23:17:33] <fsiddi> ok
[2011-04-13 23:17:36] <ichthyo> I am not 100% sure, but I recall having seen a layout, just based on CSS,
which achieved exactly that,
[2011-04-13 23:18:03] <ichthyo> i.e. limiting the maximum width, but allowing some liquid expansion below that
[2011-04-13 23:17:55] <fsiddi> i'm not sure that just CSS is possible
[2011-04-13 23:18:20] <ichthyo> If I recall right, it used several nested containers
---------------------
Regarding the handling of *vertical scrolling*, the conclusion was to stick to the defaults
as much as possible. Especially, scrollbars should rather be left to the browser, not added
to the content area. We might consider to fix the navigation block relative to the browser window
though, if that is doable with too much complications. Moreover, this navigation block, holding
the (vertical) tree-like menu, should be made sufficiently large in vertical direction, but might
show scrollbars in case of overflow.
Navigation menu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
we still need to find a way how to make the new +JQuery+ based navigation menu open and highlight
the _current_ page automatically. _fsiddi_ and _ichthyo_ will work out a solution in a separate meeting
on IRC next week.
Colour scheme
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.gray shades or using a colour scheme?
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-13 23:28:23] <ichthyo> I'd like to bring up the question regarding color
[2011-04-13 23:28:36] <ichthyo> and I'll ask especially you, fsiddi
[2011-04-13 23:28:44] <ichthyo> you know, colours are a matter of taste
[2011-04-13 23:29:15] <ichthyo> thus I'd say, as you did the general layout, you have an important say in that
[2011-04-13 23:28:59] <fsiddi> ah yes colors
[2011-04-13 23:29:11] <fsiddi> i try to keep it neutral
[2011-04-13 23:29:25] <ichthyo> you you would popose to stick to just gray shades?
[2011-04-13 23:29:34] <ichthyo> what is with the links?
[2011-04-13 23:29:39] <ichthyo> currently they are slate blue
[2011-04-13 23:29:45] <cehteh> thats ok for me
[2011-04-13 23:29:47] <fsiddi> i still have to work in them
[2011-04-13 23:29:55] <fsiddi> yes I did not color the links
[2011-04-13 23:30:13] <ichthyo> generally speaking, we should always try to limit the number of colours in a layout, IMHO
[2011-04-13 23:30:18] <cehteh> i dont think we shall use any fancy colors and maybe/if required then we add colors as markup
[2011-04-13 23:30:29] <ichthyo> but we could think of one or two "leading colours"
[2011-04-13 23:30:35] <fsiddi> i want to
[2011-04-13 23:30:43] <fsiddi> but did not put them in the css yet
[2011-04-13 23:30:53] <fsiddi> i'll do that soon
[2011-04-13 23:31:38] <fsiddi> so this is also for review soon :)
[2011-04-13 23:32:07] <cehteh> but colors are fixable and we dont have an official lumiera color (do we need one?)
[2011-04-13 23:32:22] <ichthyo> well... we could think about that
[2011-04-13 23:32:19] <fsiddi> i'll try to make up one
[2011-04-13 23:32:28] <cehteh> dunno :)
[2011-04-13 23:32:37] <ichthyo> according to my experience
[2011-04-13 23:32:47] <ichthyo> it helps a lot when you set a clear style guide early
[2011-04-13 23:33:41] <ichthyo> ok
---------------------
Webserver upgrade and the »reference distribution«
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.-- Server upgrade discussion --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-14 00:25:59] <cehteh> ok next point:
[2011-04-14 00:26:07] <cehteh> - Webserver update to squeeze (new asciidoc, keep ichthyos hand
[2011-04-14 00:26:07] <cehteh> installed trac)
[2011-04-14 00:26:07] <cehteh> - Do we want to bump our 'reference' distribution to squeeze too?
[2011-04-14 00:26:19] <cehteh> ... webserver .. as soon as possible, but no urge
[2011-04-14 00:26:34] <cehteh> reference .. i just wanted to bring this up, imo there is no need
[2011-04-14 00:26:46] <ichthyo> personally, I will upgrade soon, next 2 weeks hopefully
[2011-04-14 00:27:13] <cehteh> yes i am on squeeze and even with backports already
[2011-04-14 00:27:29] <cehteh> so its prolly even better to have the reference on the devel server a bit behind
[2011-04-14 00:27:28] <ichthyo> I would propose to bump the "reference" the moment when we actually upgrade the
devserver + builddrone
[2011-04-14 00:27:51] <cehteh> well the devserver will be upgraded when we bump the reference
[2011-04-14 00:28:10] <cehteh> builddrone will be upgraded sometime next but thats not related to the reference
[2011-04-14 00:28:12] <ichthyo> but for now there is no problem also supporting lenny, but with the note that we'll
drop that support once we run into serious problems
[2011-04-14 00:28:22] <cehteh> yes
[2011-04-14 00:28:30] <cehteh> iirc that would be the reason to bump it
[2011-04-14 00:29:05] <ichthyo> well, IMHO, when we both are on squeeze, then effectively the reference is bumped :-P
[2011-04-14 00:29:40] <cehteh> nah .. the reference is about what builddrone reports to us too
[2011-04-14 00:29:15] <cehteh> i'd stay with lenny as long as we can so .. or maybe if the next stable gets froozen
then we can go to squeeze
[2011-04-14 00:29:51] <cehteh> and what skangas and other gui coders need also
[2011-04-14 00:30:15] <cehteh> i expect that gavl and gui dependencies will be a cause for a bump
[2011-04-14 00:32:50] <cehteh> summarize: bump it someday .. as need arises?
[2011-04-14 00:33:26] <cehteh> or even better. .. no decision yet .. we'll see when its time
---------------------
Website licensing and legal questions
-------------------------------------
.-- Discussion regarding the Web content license --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-13 23:54:14] <skangas> For the record, I agree with what ichthyo said in his first e-mail.
[2011-04-13 23:54:55] <skangas> That "dual licensing under GPL and something comparable" is the best choice.
[2011-04-13 23:55:03] <skangas> Probably CC-BY-SA.
[2011-04-13 23:55:10] <ichthyo> my thinking too
[2011-04-13 23:56:05] <ichthyo> that is, for the web content, and the documentation
[2011-04-13 23:57:00] <ichthyo> cehteh: would that be ok for you too?
[2011-04-13 23:59:29] <cehteh> [23:58] <cehteh> mhm?
[2011-04-13 23:59:31] <cehteh> .. any answers beyond that?
[2011-04-13 23:59:55] <ichthyo> seems we had a short split or so
[2011-04-14 00:00:07] <ichthyo> skangas and myself just talked about licenses
[2011-04-14 00:00:09] <cehteh> i got completely disconnected
[2011-04-14 00:00:41] <ichthyo> [23:57] <ichthyo> cehteh: would that be ok for you too?
[2011-04-14 00:01:29] <cehteh> CC-BY-SA means?
[2011-04-14 00:01:47] <ichthyo> Creative commons 3.0 attribution share alike
[2011-04-14 00:02:39] <ichthyo> cehteh: CC-BY-SA is considered "equivalent in spirit" with the GPL
[2011-04-14 00:01:50] <cehteh> copyleft .. attribution .. share-alike?
[2011-04-14 00:02:25] <cehteh> this dualcicensing would be ok for me .. but a note
[2011-04-14 00:02:48] <cehteh> how about putting the documentation under a non-commercial license?
[2011-04-14 00:03:03] <ichthyo> that would throw us out of debian main
[2011-04-14 00:03:13] <cehteh> that is no one can use the lumiera docs for release printed docs and make profit from it
[2011-04-14 00:03:14] <ichthyo> debian considers such a license "non-free"
[2011-04-14 00:03:49] <ichthyo> well, I am not so much concerened about that
[2011-04-14 00:04:03] <ichthyo> because, the docs still remain available
[2011-04-14 00:04:16] <ichthyo> and if someone really goes through all the pain of creating printed stuff
[2011-04-14 00:04:31] <ichthyo> and does it well, then he deserves to make profit from that, IMHO
[2011-04-14 00:04:25] <cehteh> but i dislike the idea that someone makes profit with no work and no giving back
[2011-04-14 00:04:48] <ichthyo> I am sure that *does require* substantial amount of work
[2011-04-14 00:05:03] <ichthyo> if that person wants any chance to sell something
[2011-04-14 00:05:23] <ichthyo> just print a crappy web dump won't make anyone sell much copies, IMHO
[2011-04-14 00:04:59] <cehteh> then its ok for me
[2011-04-14 00:05:33] <cehteh> but i've seen publisher which just took the free docs do *little* editing and formating
and sell it for a lot money
[2011-04-14 00:05:53] <ichthyo> and, will he make substantial turnover with that?
[2011-04-14 00:06:15] <skangas> Yeah, I think the point here is that poor quality high prices do not sell.
[2011-04-14 00:06:16] <cehteh> btw GPL only would prevent that too .. the publisher has to release his tex,
m$ -word or whatever sources then
[2011-04-14 00:06:36] <cehteh> does -sa prevent that too?
[2011-04-14 00:06:36] <ichthyo> making modifications available under the same conditions, yes.
[2011-04-14 00:06:46] <cehteh> besides, he needs to point out *within* that printed docs, that the license is free
[2011-04-14 00:07:44] <cehteh> but possibly some people get upset when they contribute a lot and someone else makes the profit
[2011-04-14 00:07:44] <skangas> I do not see how it would damage our goals.
[2011-04-14 00:08:06] <skangas> It would be more in the spirit of not allowing the free-loaders easy access.
[2011-04-14 00:08:20] <cehteh> well as i saied, that was just a note/idea .. i am fine with the dual-licensing
[2011-04-14 00:08:39] <ichthyo> well... here is the standard argument: if someone creates additional value on top of what
we provide, i.e. make a quality print, process orders, ship the copies,
then fine for me, if he/she makes turnover with that
[2011-04-14 00:09:01] <cehteh> yes
[2011-04-14 00:09:08] <skangas> I do not care much for that argument.
[2011-04-14 00:09:16] <skangas> For me, it is more about getting into Debian main.
[2011-04-14 00:09:59] <skangas> And the fact that I do not care if some marginal publisher makes a bit of money off
of the Lumiera documentation.
[2011-04-14 00:09:10] <ichthyo> the online docs will always be more acurate, more up-to-date
[2011-04-14 00:09:13] <skangas> Not even if a big one does it; that would only mean more attention to the project.
[2011-04-14 00:09:32] <cehteh> i would like this if we even can point to him and announce that as the offical lumiera book
[2011-04-14 00:10:10] <cehteh> but there are so much publishers which just try to make money without being really involved
[2011-04-14 00:10:31] <skangas> cehteh, Yes, even publishers which only print Wikipedia articles.
[2011-04-14 00:10:46] <ichthyo> and btw, what is more realistic, given that lumiera becomes a real, professional app,
then maybe someone will provide lectures and training
and that is much more apt to create a good turnover and benefit
[2011-04-14 00:11:14] <cehteh> ichthyo: lectures and training involves work .. thats ok
[2011-04-14 00:11:42] <cehteh> anyeays ... dual license gpl and cc-by-sa
[2011-04-14 00:11:46] <cehteh> ok for me
[2011-04-14 00:11:55] <ichthyo> fine, seems case is settled
[2011-04-14 00:12:04] <cehteh> eh which gpl ? gpl2+ .. same as lumiera
[2011-04-14 00:12:08] <ichthyo> yes
[2011-04-14 00:12:15] <ichthyo> thats important
[2011-04-14 00:12:32] <cehteh> and we may bump lumiera to gplv3 when we release it (and we know all its dependencies)
[2011-04-14 00:12:39] <ichthyo> so you can move code / doc in both directions without problems
[2011-04-14 00:12:42] <skangas> GPLv2+ not GPLv2, right?
[2011-04-14 00:12:48] <cehteh> skangas: yes
[2011-04-14 00:12:51] <skangas> OK. Great.
[2011-04-14 00:13:14] <cehteh> we only use gplv2 now because we dont want to rule out to use external libs which may be v2 only
[2011-04-14 00:13:25] <ichthyo> and a rather firm promise to bump it to gpl3 when this works and we're approaching a release
[2011-04-14 00:13:40] <cehteh> or gplv4 :P
[2011-04-14 00:13:47] <ichthyo> yay!
[2011-04-14 00:13:51] <cehteh> btw duke nukem is delayed
[2011-04-14 00:14:02] <ichthyo> ouch, I'm surprised
---------------------
Conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~
* Website content and documentation will be dual-licensed GPL 2+ and CC-3.0-BY-SA
* _Ichthyo_ will clarify the actual licenses used on the ``license'' page
* moreover he'll care to add an _Impressum_ -- as required by german law
Trac spam
---------
After an increasing amount of Spam tickets in the link:http://issues.lumiera.org[Trac],
_Ichthyo_ installed the Trac antispam plugin (which required an upgrade to Trac 0.12,
actually repackaging a current version into an pre-release debian package, as the
official debian package isn't on the required level). After a bit of training,
the Bayesian filter successfully blocked any further spam tickets.
The remaining problem are spam user accounts though. To deal with that problem, _Ichthyo_
designed a custom SQL query based on some obvious heuristics, which seems to pinpoint
all spurious accounts. We'll try to execute that SQL for some time manually, and --
in case it behaves sane -- automate that cleanup as a cronjob in some months.
_Cehteh_ points out that this new policy should at least be anounced on the Mailinglist.
Recurring Topic: Design process entries
---------------------------------------
Discussion of open link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[design process] drafts.
Since some time, no further discussion happened regarding the currently _pending_
RfC entries. Agreement is that we should again return to the former routine and
revisit the relevant design process entries in each developer meeting.
.-- the Application Install proposal --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-14 00:48:25] <cehteh> http://lumiera.org/documentation/devel/rfc_pending/ApplicationInstall.html
[2011-04-14 00:48:40] <ichthyo> maybe only pick out some interestin ones or some which are quick to decide
[2011-04-14 00:49:06] <cehteh> well i want to go over all pending .. then we can put notes there "boring for the next meeting"
[2011-04-14 00:49:42] <cehteh> for example this application install .. is boring .. you did a lot work, imo you can finalize it
[2011-04-14 00:50:04] <cehteh> (i dint read it in detail now)
[2011-04-14 00:50:25] <cehteh> maybe we want another state "accepted" ..
[2011-04-14 00:50:44] <cehteh> that is the interesting things which we know we will not drop but which are not finalized yet
[2011-04-14 00:54:29] <cehteh> the application install came first... we need it, you did it well .. it could be 'finalized' or
rather that would be some 'acceepted' candidate ..
[2011-04-14 00:53:25] <ichthyo> I think, the existing states are enough
[2011-04-14 00:53:44] <ichthyo> either really discuss something and then decide, or just leave it in draft
[2011-04-14 00:54:05] <ichthyo> lets just postpone the application install and leave it in draft!
---------------------
Delectus Shot Evaluator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agreement to _park_ it until someone else comes up to advance this topic further.
Clip Cataloging System
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
similarily to _park_ until someone cares....
DesignParamAutomation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keep _pending_ -- _ichthyo_ will expand on that
Lumiera Forward Iterator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-14 00:58:39] <cehteh> pending
[2011-04-14 00:58:48] <ichthyo> well, this is entirely an C++ topic
[2011-04-14 00:58:58] <ichthyo> I for my part vote for accepting it now
[2011-04-14 00:59:11] <ichthyo> I use this concept now since almost a year and it worked out well
[2011-04-14 00:59:25] <cehteh> yeah i think its more a trac ticket than a rfc
[2011-04-14 00:59:55] <ichthyo> well, it *is* something which would need discussion if there where more than one C++ developer
[2011-04-14 01:00:14] <cehteh> but if it works for you, i put it on 'maybe finalize' .. means i read through it and finalize it
when i have no objections
[2011-04-14 01:00:24] <ichthyo> yes, agreed
---------------------
Design the Render Nodes interface
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.-- Discussion of details --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-14 01:01:04] <cehteh> thats definitely pending .. needs discussion
[2011-04-14 01:01:33] <ichthyo> yes
[2011-04-14 01:01:54] <cehteh> maybe we park it to get rid of it for now since this is months ahead?
[2011-04-14 01:02:28] <ichthyo> we could even drop it, but parking is ok
[2011-04-14 01:02:44] <ichthyo> that RfC basically sais: PLING PLING PLING, we need to discuss that
[2011-04-14 01:02:53] <cehteh> well, I wont drop it, its a nice place to document the intention about the design
[2011-04-14 01:03:10] <ichthyo> ok, so lets park it
---------------------
Developer Documentation Structure
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--> see link:http://issues.lumiera.org/ticket/763[Ticket #763]
.-- Discussion of details --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
---------------------
[2011-04-14 01:03:23] <cehteh> i check that, bring it up to date and finalize it?
[2011-04-14 01:03:36] <ichthyo> i have some objections against that, see my comment
[2011-04-14 01:04:00] <ichthyo> I think, the current structure is better than what that RfC proposes
[2011-04-14 01:04:05] <cehteh> yes .. thats what i meant with bring it up to date
[2011-04-14 01:04:39] <cehteh> i can keep it pending .. and then we can finalize it when you agree
[2011-04-14 01:04:49] <ichthyo> ok, so you will update it?
[2011-04-14 01:05:32] <cehteh> yes .. maybe not for next time but i put it on todo
---------------------
Engine Interface Overview
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.-- Discussion of details --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-14 01:05:50] <cehteh> pending .. there is lot to do?
[2011-04-14 01:06:02] <ichthyo> sort of
[2011-04-14 01:06:10] <ichthyo> basically that is a high level outline
[2011-04-14 01:06:19] <cehteh> this is a rather big thing maybe we drop it in favor of smaller rfc's
[2011-04-14 01:06:23] <ichthyo> it doesn't contain details
[2011-04-14 01:06:27] <cehteh> but for now leave it pending
[2011-04-14 01:06:45] <ichthyo> at the time I wrote that, you said it looks okish for you
[2011-04-14 01:06:58] <cehteh> yes .. quite possible
[2011-04-14 01:06:55] <ichthyo> this one would be really important to discuss soon
[2011-04-14 01:07:11] <cehteh> i need to catch up first ..duh
[2011-04-14 01:07:23] <ichthyo> note: it doesnt go into details, just sets a very high level outline how the overall process works
[2011-04-14 01:07:39] <ichthyo> I think *that one* is really needed to be accepted/ reworked soon
[2011-04-14 01:07:43] <cehteh> yes .. lets talk next meeting about that (or some time else)
[2011-04-14 01:07:57] <ichthyo> ok
[2011-04-14 01:08:05] <cehteh> so pending for now
---------------------
Feature Bundle
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Expected to be very important in the far future, but we don't have the
resources to work on that right now, so _park_ it.
Marble Mode
~~~~~~~~~~~
.-- Discussion of details --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-14 01:08:51] <ichthyo> this is also a high level one
[2011-04-14 01:08:57] <ichthyo> I am much in favour of that
[2011-04-14 01:09:09] <ichthyo> but its really kind of conceptual
[2011-04-14 01:09:20] <cehteh> me too ... but its too early to finalize it or?
[2011-04-14 01:09:52] <cehteh> that would be a 'accepted' candidate too :)
[2011-04-14 01:09:55] <ichthyo> well, I would accept it...
[2011-04-14 01:10:23] <ichthyo> but I wrote it so you (and others) also think that over
[2011-04-14 01:10:27] <cehteh> i think 'final' should somethnig which wont be changed or discussed anymore unless we see problems
[2011-04-14 01:10:40] <cehteh> thats why i am thinking we may need an 'accepted' state
[2011-04-14 01:11:07] <cehteh> and this marble mode certainly needs a lot more discussion and work to be final
[2011-04-14 01:11:51] <ichthyo> mhm, but that RfC just proposes to go for that direction, not how to do all the details
[2011-04-14 01:11:58] <cehteh> or we just finalize it as 'concept' we want no matter how we implement it finally
[2011-04-14 01:12:05] <cehteh> yes ok then
[2011-04-14 01:12:10] <ichthyo> yes, ok then
---------------------
Normalized Device Coordinates
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still very rough, but basically agreed. +
While it needs more work, it's a bit out of focus right now, so _park it.
Proc High Level Model and Placement concept
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's rather final by now. This link:http://lumiera.org/documentation/devel/rfc/ProcHighLevelModel.html[proposal]
meanwhile documents the existing design; it's up to date and didn't see significant
additions since almost two years. Generally agreed upon, so it's _final_ now.
The same holds true for the
link:http://lumiera.org/documentation/devel/rfc/ProcPlacementMetaphor.html[Placement] proposal
Render Optimizer, Resource Management and Profiling
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.-- Discussion of details --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-14 01:17:19] <cehteh> park
[2011-04-14 01:17:32] <ichthyo> accept for me
[2011-04-14 01:17:56] <ichthyo> that is so much our common understanding meanwhile
[2011-04-14 01:18:02] <ichthyo> so, maybe just polish a bit
[2011-04-14 01:18:18] <cehteh> yes park because it needs some polishing before final
[2011-04-14 01:18:24] <ichthyo> (remove the "pro and con") and then we could accept it right away
[2011-04-14 01:18:28] <cehteh> i can put a note that its basically accepted
[2011-04-14 01:18:38] <cehteh> parking isnt neccessary bad :P
[2011-04-14 01:18:46] <ichthyo> ResourceManagement
[2011-04-14 01:18:49] <cehteh> (well again that would be a 'accept' candidate)
[2011-04-14 01:18:53] <ichthyo> needs some more work
[2011-04-14 01:19:01] <cehteh> that are 2 things .. yes
[2011-04-14 01:19:10] <cehteh> profiling and budgeting ..
[2011-04-14 01:19:21] <cehteh> i think i will implement them and then see how it works
[2011-04-14 01:19:40] <cehteh> (unless someone else shows better alternatives)
[2011-04-14 01:19:47] <ichthyo> if you change that and e.g. remove the code sample and make it really short and high level,
then we could accept it as a concept; but the implementation details need certainly more work
[2011-04-14 01:20:17] <cehteh> hey that code is the code i lost with the hdd crash .. i am happy that i put it there
[2011-04-14 01:20:27] <cehteh> yes it was a very rough idea
[2011-04-14 01:20:37] <cehteh> and not on schedule to implemented soon
[2011-04-14 01:20:45] <cehteh> i just sketched some code down
[2011-04-14 01:21:04] <cehteh> so pending or park?
[2011-04-14 01:21:08] <ichthyo> as said, would it be ok for you to remove that sketch and just leave it on that level of the
first sentences, because then we could accept it right away
[2011-04-14 01:21:45] <cehteh> ok pending for now .. i dont want to work on this currently .. other things are more important
[2011-04-14 01:21:47] <ichthyo> we both pretty much agree that we *want* some kind of budget managing and resource usage
---------------------
Roadmap
~~~~~~~
The link:http://lumiera.org/documentation/devel/rfc/Roadmap-first.html[Roadmap document]
was erroneously not marked as final; +
Seemingly it was decided upon in 2009 already ...
Stream Type System
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-14 01:24:06] <ichthyo> very important for me -- my vote is for accept
[2011-04-14 01:24:16] <cehteh> we had some discussion how to maintain metadata ..
[2011-04-14 01:24:40] <cehteh> i vote for accept too but this metadata (which may decribe the type) needs work
[2011-04-14 01:24:49] <ichthyo> well, this one is really a heavyweight conceptual RfC
[2011-04-14 01:25:00] <ichthyo> it is not about *how* to maintain metadata
[2011-04-14 01:25:05] <cehteh> yes
[2011-04-14 01:25:08] <cehteh> so accept
[2011-04-14 01:25:18] <ichthyo> but it really contains far reaching decisions
[2011-04-14 01:25:27] <ichthyo> and terminology
[2011-04-14 01:25:51] <ichthyo> please see, I would be glad if there was some discussion about that
[2011-04-14 01:26:36] <ichthyo> but well, at the moment I am the only one thinking into more details of this whole topic
[2011-04-14 01:26:24] <cehteh> shall i leave it pending just to nag us?
[2011-04-14 01:26:50] <ichthyo> yes, leave it pending
[2011-04-14 01:27:10] <cehteh> i was thinking too about this .. but not consistently ...
[2011-04-14 01:27:24] <ichthyo> as said, I vote for accept, but I would really ask you to think it over
[2011-04-14 01:27:38] <cehteh> i think that needs some time to settle to the right point [tm]
[2011-04-14 01:27:43] <ichthyo> I'm not right away implementing it, but the implementation is rather trivial
[2011-04-14 01:27:48] <ichthyo> so leave it pending
---------------------
Threads Signals and important management tasks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.-- Discussion of details --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-04-14 01:28:33] <cehteh> we need to work together to implement this on the main .. but generally i think this can be
accepted with some refinements
[2011-04-14 01:28:14] <ichthyo> some time ago, we had a short discussion about that
[2011-04-14 01:28:55] <ichthyo> The bottom line was: I am in favour of that, but I rather would like not to build it
directly into that main thread, but have a dedicated thread for it
and at that time you said, that would not be a fundamental problem
[2011-04-14 01:29:30] <cehteh> i wonder why not the main thread .. but its ok for me
[2011-04-14 01:29:53] <ichthyo> my argument is keeping the code simple and dedicated to one purpose
[2011-04-14 01:30:05] <cehteh> the main thread is a kindof 'service thread' right?
[2011-04-14 01:30:09] <ichthyo> the main thread's purpose is to wake up and shut down the system
[2011-04-14 01:30:25] <ichthyo> and I'd prefer to let him do only that and nothing else
[2011-04-14 01:30:26] <cehteh> i dont want the cinelerra fail .. opening a thread for every purpose
[2011-04-14 01:30:58] <ichthyo> generally yes, but for the more fine grained things we have the scheduler
[2011-04-14 01:31:08] <cehteh> well ok .. from my pov the main thread is more than just that but a general sheepheard
[2011-04-14 01:31:39] <cehteh> not only starting and shutdown but also control the direction
[2011-04-14 01:32:08] <cehteh> but really this isnt much a difference, if you want an extra thread then let it be so
[2011-04-14 01:32:46] <ichthyo> I see the code complexity. It would just look okish for me if we split it into these two
[2011-04-14 01:33:26] <cehteh> there is not much complexity, the main thread waits currently ..
[2011-04-14 01:34:02] <cehteh> and it can get woken by signals or condvar (convars return when a signal arrives)
[2011-04-14 01:34:29] <cehteh> actually having an extra thread wont make the code simpler because then the main thread
needs to be rigged to ignore the signals. All other threads are created by us and can
implicitly be rigged in this way
[2011-04-14 01:34:53] <ichthyo> main thread handles that already, if I recall correct
[2011-04-14 01:35:05] <ichthyo> because it loops on the condition and goes to sleep again
[2011-04-14 01:35:29] <cehteh> yes but you didnt add any sigmask handling / signal blocking right?
[2011-04-14 01:35:44] <ichthyo> ah I see, thats still todo
[2011-04-14 01:35:51] <cehteh> anyways .. i accept it .. implementation pending
[2011-04-14 01:37:38] <cehteh> signal handling becomes a 'subsystem' then ... :)
[2011-04-14 01:37:46] <ichthyo> yes, thats what I mean
---------------------
Session structure -- Timelines, Sequences, Output
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This link:http://lumiera.org/documentation/devel/rfc_pending/TimelineSequenceOutput.html[proposal]
can be considered definitively final. Key point is: we have multiple timelines and a sequence can be used
in multiple timelines. We pretty much agree on that, thus it counts as _finalised_ now.
Use Cases
~~~~~~~~~
This is an heavyweight proposal regarding the high-level design and general handling of the
Application. This would be really a topic to be discussed in conjection with the ``Workflow''
-- the idea was to have a working group focussed these topics entirely, but there is no one
in charge of that right now. Thus _park_ it for the time being.
Version Number Scheme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The proposal for link:http://lumiera.org/documentation/devel/rfc_pending/VersionNumberScheme.html[Version numbering]
is _accepted_ -- it's considered close to common practice and _ichthyo_ relied on it for the debian
package already.
'''''''''''''
Next meeting
------------
The next meeting will be as usual, at Wednesday May 11, 20:00 UTC

677
doc/devel/meeting_summary/2011-05-11.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,677 @@
2011-05-11 Lumiera Developers Meeting
=====================================
:Author: Ichthyostega
:Date: 2012-05-15
May 11, 2011 on #lumiera 20:00 - 23:23 UTC +
__Participants__
* cehteh
* ichthyo
* daylife
_Transcript prepared by Ichthyo_
Render Engine Interface
-----------------------
_Ichthyo_ had prepared a new
link:/documentation/devel/rfc_pending/EngineInterfaceSpec.html[RfC]
about the actual interface between the
link:/documentation/design/architecture/playRender.html[Player subsystem]
and the Renderengine/Scheduler.
The following discussion turned into considering several detaled and technical
topics regarding the Jobs to be scheduled, how to create and attach new jobs,
handle memory ...
- Engine Interface ⟺ Scheduler Interface
- Latency of GUI reaction
- Aborting of Jobs, rescheduling, Job dependencies
- Ressource handling, Callbacks after Modifications
- one central service ⟺ integrating with external libs/services
- explicit wait state on Jobs?
- Interfaces and components working together
- Responsibilities: who cares for what part
- Dedicated Time facility
- animating the GUI during playback
- interaction between proc and backend
- handling of prerequisite ressources
Conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~
_Ichthyo_ will take on responsibility for that interface and care to translate
the calls into actual Jobs to be handed to the Scheduler. The Scheduler interface
itself will remain rather low-level and straight forward. The _callback_ facilities
described in the mentioned RfC need to be implemented explicitly on top of this
Scheduler interface. Ichthyo will care for that, and the integration with the
Fixture datastructure.
Next meeting
------------
The next meeting will be as usual, at Wednesday June 8, 20:00 UTC
''''
.-- Engine Interface ⟺ Scheduler Interface --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-11 22:08:54] <cehteh> ichthyo: how do we want to proceed with the engine interface,
discuss it point by point or only a overview and edit comments in the rfc?
[2011-05-11 22:09:08] <ichthyo> well I thought rather the latter...its a rough draft
[2011-05-11 22:10:52] <cehteh> well generally i agree with your proposal (i'm just reading it)
with some refinements/ideas i want to add
[2011-05-11 22:12:48] <ichthyo> well, probably the most important new view angle is that
I looked on all those 'play mode changes'
[2011-05-11 22:12:51] <cehteh> QoS: do we want constants there or could you think about a 'functor' which reacts more dynamic?
[2011-05-11 22:13:20] <cehteh> well your proposal sounded like constants (to be defined)
[2011-05-11 22:13:35] <ichthyo> yes, its constants, but it seems natural to extend that
[2011-05-11 22:13:47] <cehteh> i think about a functor or even a trait-class where you can query things
[2011-05-11 22:14:19] <cehteh> this class can then react more dynamic
[2011-05-11 22:14:22] <ichthyo> ok, yes, so that you could e.g. combine several independent degrees of freedom
[2011-05-11 22:14:31] <cehteh> yes
[2011-05-11 22:16:02] <cehteh> then we can ask precisely "shall we render this frame now?"...
instead generally "do we render frames under timing pressure?"
[2011-05-11 22:16:47] <cehteh> and of course also other questions, accuracy, syncronization and so on
(...)
[2011-05-11 22:18:17] <cehteh> the other thing is about sequences --
the backend delivers only single frames, you set up relations
(this frame comes after that frame)
[2011-05-11 22:18:44] <cehteh> i would like if we can put prefetching and driving sequences
into the player/scheduler and not in the backend at all
[2011-05-11 22:18:56] <ichthyo> yeah... I figured that there is some discrepancy
[2011-05-11 22:19:33] <cehteh> well for me there is no much difference,
i am already optimizing for sequences of course but
there is no need to pass that explicitly
[2011-05-11 22:19:33] <ichthyo> so somehow we'd find a way to come from such sequences down to
the individual frames which can be deliverd
[2011-05-11 22:20:22] <ichthyo> yet there is one nasty problem
[2011-05-11 22:20:42] <ichthyo> all those changes I'm writing about here are more or less connected to such a sequence a s awhole
[2011-05-11 22:22:02] <cehteh> a 'job' .. or more precicely a 'frame-render-job' can have some state,
like references to related (following) jobs or so on
[2011-05-11 22:22:15] <cehteh> i am not sure yet if we want to put that there or in the player
[2011-05-11 22:23:04] <cehteh> maybe even the player is better but that makes the player a little more complex
as it doesnt just need to shoot and forget but also care for a lot
(potentially aborted) jobs
----------------------------
.-- Latency of GUI reaction --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-11 22:22:49] <ichthyo> e.g think about the following scenario:
[2011-05-11 22:23:06] <ichthyo> we're in the middle of playing, and now we want to switch to double speed playback
[2011-05-11 22:23:39] <cehteh> yes then the player cancels every other frame job and changes its timebase
[2011-05-11 22:23:56] <cehteh> or instead canceling it could put them on a lower priority
[2011-05-11 22:24:01] <ichthyo> that means, the player/scheduler/whatever needs to find out a point in time,
*when* this switch can be performed
[2011-05-11 22:24:13] <ichthyo> and then cancel all existing jobs after that point and reschedule new jobs
[2011-05-11 22:24:40] <cehteh> so that means the player might get considerably more heavy with all this bookkeeping
[2011-05-11 22:24:40] <ichthyo> note I thought it helps if we don't guarantee immediate reaction
[2011-05-11 22:25:00] <ichthyo> for the user it doesn't count if the speedup happens 100ms later
[2011-05-11 22:25:13] <cehteh> 100ms yes ... thats noticeable
[2011-05-11 22:25:22] <ichthyo> ok, 50ms or so
[2011-05-11 22:25:45] <daylife> 30 ms is noticable
[2011-05-11 22:26:41] <cehteh> there should be a fast-path for time and priority rescheduling
[2011-05-11 22:27:33] <cehteh> fast path == explcit interface for only that purpose
[2011-05-11 22:27:36] <daylife> I'm not sure what you're discussing exactly, but one of the things that bothers me most
about the Lightworks beta is the noticable lag when navigating the timeline,
playing, etc, in contrast to Avid, which immediately, no delay whatsoever,
responds to any user action
[2011-05-11 22:29:01] <cehteh> user actions should give *instant* feedback --
even if this feedback is only fake feedback in corner cases
[2011-05-11 22:29:21] * ichthyo nods
[2011-05-11 22:29:22] <daylife> editing is on that part a bit like playing piano. if there were any delay,
no matter how short, between pressing a key and hearing a note, it would be very irritating
[2011-05-11 22:29:32] <cehteh> exacty
[2011-05-11 22:29:39] <hermanr> Indeed
----------------------------
.-- Aborting of Jobs, rescheduling, Job dependencies --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-11 22:33:02] <cehteh> but caveat .. maybe we need to reschedule dependent jobs too
[2011-05-11 22:33:24] <ichthyo> yeah... likely
[2011-05-11 22:33:38] <cehteh> so far you wanted to provide jobs in a conflictless nondeadlocking way
[2011-05-11 22:34:08] <cehteh> but for rescheduling that means likely that dependency information needs
to be passed and maintained in the scheduler as well
[2011-05-11 22:34:12] <ichthyo> that doesn't need to be immediately the level within the scheduler
[2011-05-11 22:34:29] <cehteh> well it would be much easier if it is
[2011-05-11 22:35:09] <ichthyo> well... thus the idea to allow for a (small) tolerance interval
[2011-05-11 22:35:14] <cehteh> then rescheduling automatically walks all dependencies, reschedules them too
and by that it can already see if we can met timing constraints
[2011-05-11 22:36:37] <cehteh> the 'reschedule' can answer if rescheduling is possible
[2011-05-11 22:37:07] <cehteh> so you just iterate over all frame-job to be rescheduled from shortest to longest time
[2011-05-11 22:37:36] <cehteh> the most urgend reschedules may return "hey this job is already running, cant reschedule"
[2011-05-11 22:37:49] <cehteh> or even "already done, nothing to do"
[2011-05-11 22:38:03] <cehteh> to "sorry, cant do that dave"
[2011-05-11 22:38:15] <cehteh> to "ok rescheduling acknowledged"
[2011-05-11 22:38:32] <cehteh> any other returns possible? i think thats all
[2011-05-11 22:39:39] <ichthyo> ok, but now, just by doing that walk, we've found out a time point when the change will happen
[2011-05-11 22:40:33] <ichthyo> and that would be the information interesting for the layers above
[2011-05-11 22:40:56] <ichthyo> e.g. to change the animation speed of the cursor, or whatever
[2011-05-11 22:41:40] <cehteh> if you want async rescheduling you make that a job by itself
[2011-05-11 22:42:41] <cehteh> so for the player it might reschedule the next 500ms worth of frames synchronously
and any later frames (background rendering) asynchronously
[2011-05-11 22:42:04] <ichthyo> or more concrete... when we do an 'abort'
[2011-05-11 22:42:12] <ichthyo> e.g. because the user changed the model
[2011-05-11 22:42:24] <ichthyo> then I'm sure I need that asynchroneous feedback
[2011-05-11 22:43:14] <ichthyo> ...i.e. that other part doesn't have a timer or scheduler on its own,
but rather relies on that callback
[2011-05-11 22:43:19] <cehteh> we never abort 'running' jobs .. only waiting or scheduled jobs
[2011-05-11 22:43:48] <ichthyo> but we can (and need) to 'abort' whole calculation streams
----------------------------
.-- Ressource handling, Callbacks after Modifications --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-11 22:45:27] <cehteh> do you really need that feedback?
[2011-05-11 22:45:47] <cehteh> how about 'abort' gives instant feedback ..
[2011-05-11 22:45:53] <cehteh> or even 'never fails'
[2011-05-11 22:46:09] <cehteh> just abort a job and consider it dead from your point of view
[2011-05-11 22:46:14] <ichthyo> note: the point is: in that other part triggering the 'abort'
[2011-05-11 22:46:23] <ichthyo> there is no timer or scheduler running
[2011-05-11 22:46:44] <ichthyo> so it doesn't help to know *when* the abort is executed
[2011-05-11 22:47:03] <ichthyo> but I need to be notified *after* it has happened
[2011-05-11 22:47:09] <cehteh> jobs are self containing, any resources they need are attached to the job,
they should not reference any volatile data up in proc
[2011-05-11 22:47:39] <ichthyo> directly, yes of course -- but indirectly thats impossible
[2011-05-11 22:49:49] <ichthyo> in that concrete example, quite simply, because the higher layers can do some stuff
only after the jobs are gone
[2011-05-11 22:49:57] <ichthyo> e.g. close the session
[2011-05-11 22:50:03] <cehteh> really?
[2011-05-11 22:50:25] <ichthyo> well... I can't just blow away a session which is still used by ongoing jobs
[2011-05-11 22:51:04] <cehteh> jobs have no backpointers to the session
[2011-05-11 22:51:05] <ichthyo> of course I don't mutate the data which is referred by the jobs
[2011-05-11 22:52:09] <cehteh> nah not only reference data i am really thinking that jobs have absolutely
no references into the session
[2011-05-11 22:52:18] <cehteh> they have references into the backend data
[2011-05-11 22:52:23] <cehteh> but these are managed there
[2011-05-11 22:52:37] <cehteh> while closing a session doesnt require to shutdown the backend
[2011-05-11 22:53:01] <ichthyo> well, so to clarify that: there *is* some kind of back reference for sure.
Just it isn't direct. See for example: a job references an exit node
[2011-05-11 22:53:35] <ichthyo> and it references an output slot
[2011-05-11 22:53:38] <cehteh> really?
[2011-05-11 22:53:47] <cehteh> how about a functor there
[2011-05-11 22:53:50] <ichthyo> both are things which are somehow allocated from the session
[2011-05-11 22:53:55] <cehteh> jobs references a continutation job
[2011-05-11 22:54:16] <cehteh> which is an abstraction of the exit node
[2011-05-11 22:54:36] <cehteh> well anyways .. the callback *is* trivially possible
[2011-05-11 22:54:48] <cehteh> but do not expect that i want to do rescheduling for aborting jobs
[2011-05-11 22:55:30] <ichthyo> well... as said: jobs can't be aborted
[2011-05-11 22:55:38] <ichthyo> but whole calculation streams can
[2011-05-11 22:55:42] <cehteh> if you place a job to be executed in 1 hour and then abort this job,
this abort callback might be called not earlier than in one hour
(or if your really want we can add a time-limit there for rescheduling)
[2011-05-11 22:57:34] <ichthyo> no! this callback job would not be scheduled to that time of the original job
(1 hour in the future) but to that point when the scheduler can guarantee that
non of the old jobs will become active anymore because then I can dispose the data,
change connections, deregister output slots and so on.
Thus all I want for this respect is a guarantee that the working function of that job
can't get active anymore
[2011-05-11 23:00:41] <ichthyo> do you see my point?
[2011-05-11 23:00:46] <cehteh> yes i see your point
[2011-05-11 23:01:33] <ichthyo> it doesn't help me to know *now* that 3 frames into the future will still be calculated
and delivered, but starting with the 4.th frame, the abort will be in effect
[2011-05-11 23:01:44] <ichthyo> this information doesn't help me *now*
[2011-05-11 23:02:09] <ichthyo> because, until these 3 frames are delivered, I can't deregister the "output slot"
[2011-05-11 23:02:17] <ichthyo> e.g. disconect an audio client from Jack server
[2011-05-11 23:02:57] <cehteh> RAII :P .. garbage collecton would be better in this case
[2011-05-11 23:03:07] <ichthyo> not the slightest
[2011-05-11 23:04:10] <ichthyo> deregistering an external connection has nothing to do with how the resources are tracked.
[2011-05-11 23:04:22] <ichthyo> rather I need to know *when* its safe to do so
(...)
[2011-05-11 23:07:56] <ichthyo> cehteh: actually I'd put an adaptation layer in between.
When viewed from the player (or the session for that), I only want an high-level 'abort'
operation. Like I proposed in my RfC. I didn't expect to talk directly to the scheduler
or any part of the engine. So at the interface of the scheduler, that can be implemented
so that it fits in best there
[2011-05-11 23:08:18] <cehteh> well i am thinking in low level terms (as usual)
[2011-05-11 23:09:09] <cehteh> i write some low-level notes for the interface (nothing concrete)
----------------------------
.-- one central service ⟺ integrating with external libs/services --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-11 23:09:58] <ichthyo> Just as a striking example
[2011-05-11 23:10:13] <ichthyo> think about the occasional crashes with the dummy player currently in the GUI
[2011-05-11 23:10:24] <ichthyo> that is exactly due to a lack of such a callback
[2011-05-11 23:10:26] <cehteh> yes while i was thinking we can decouple this completely, but maybe not
[2011-05-11 23:10:41] <ichthyo> the GUI closes the window. The only thing I can do is to block that closing
[2011-05-11 23:10:57] <ichthyo> but without external help, I don't know how long to block
[2011-05-11 23:11:33] <ichthyo> and I we don't block, then the last frame gets disposed into an output buffer
which is already gone, deregistered from XV and whatsoever
[2011-05-11 23:11:45] <ichthyo> not ever, but sometimes
[2011-05-11 23:12:18] <cehteh> well i was thinking that the scheduler and backend only operate on their own data
and you can just drop that on the floor from player and proc (and gui)
[2011-05-11 23:12:37] <cehteh> that means currently the player presents some buffers and the mockup player renders there
[2011-05-11 23:13:02] <cehteh> this renders into the gui provied buffer which the gui may release too early right?
[2011-05-11 23:13:34] <cehteh> but if this buffer is provided by the backend and the gui just closes down, not displaying it
anymore then nothing happens, the backend knows how to manage resources
[2011-05-11 23:14:29] <ichthyo> well... true, but a general mismatch
[2011-05-11 23:14:34] <ichthyo> usually it works the other way round
[2011-05-11 23:14:49] <ichthyo> I don't know how it's for ALSA, but also for jack it works the other way round
[2011-05-11 23:15:01] <ichthyo> all those systems assume that you have a thread running just to serve them
[2011-05-11 23:15:06] <cehteh> yes
[2011-05-11 23:15:13] <ichthyo> and require you to set up buffers to place things into
[2011-05-11 23:15:24] <ichthyo> Jack is even more rigourous
[2011-05-11 23:15:32] <cehteh> yes i see now
[2011-05-11 23:15:54] <ichthyo> so thats an important general mismatch we should come up with a nice solution maybe
[2011-05-11 23:16:13] <cehteh> but well i still wonder if we may put such a callback even more into the
backend "resource released" ...
[2011-05-11 23:16:18] <cehteh> mhm maybe not
[2011-05-11 23:16:48] <cehteh> has pros and cons .. not all resources have jobs associated
[2011-05-11 23:16:16] <ichthyo> of course it would be great, if the backend just delivers in time,
right into the buffer for output
[2011-05-11 23:16:39] <ichthyo> so that we don't need another buffering and copy over step on the output side
[2011-05-11 23:17:06] <cehteh> but still in real the jack buffers will come from the backend
[2011-05-11 23:17:13] <cehteh> so the backend can send a notify
[2011-05-11 23:21:23] <ichthyo> cehteh: AFAIK, the jack buffers come from the jack server
[2011-05-11 23:22:02] <ichthyo> same for any gui widgets to display video
[2011-05-11 23:21:44] <ichthyo> and not from the backend
[2011-05-11 23:21:49] <cehteh> ichthyo: the backend can still manage that
[2011-05-11 23:22:44] <ichthyo> so why should the backend try to manage buffers,
which are actually managed by an other (external) system??
[2011-05-11 23:22:47] <cehteh> generally i want it the other way around that the backend allocates/mmaps buffers,
but i know that there are a lot things which do it the other way around
[2011-05-11 23:23:02] <cehteh> that means we can do 2 things: copying into the destination buffer
[2011-05-11 23:23:11] <cehteh> or manage this destination buffers as well
[2011-05-11 23:24:08] <ichthyo> or (3rd option): let the last calculation step work into those external destination buffers
[2011-05-11 23:24:35] <cehteh> thats case 2 .. when we manage them, then we calculate there with our normal toolchain
[2011-05-11 23:25:03] <ichthyo> not quite; we use them, but we don't manage them
[2011-05-11 23:25:27] <cehteh> proc just asks for a buffer and doesnt need to care from where it comes
(RAM, Graphics card, audio server ...)
[2011-05-11 23:26:11] <cehteh> if we dont manage them but only 'use' then then we get some more code paths
for every different kind of buffer
[2011-05-11 23:26:08] <ichthyo> and thats not all
[2011-05-11 23:26:14] <ichthyo> there are similar problems
[2011-05-11 23:26:26] <ichthyo> e.g. jack doesn't run in our threading sytem
[2011-05-11 23:26:30] <cehteh> yes, rather shared memory
[2011-05-11 23:27:04] <ichthyo> so another question is: can we even be so precise?
we don't have low-latency permissions, as the jack server has
so that means some additional buffering or copying anyway
[2011-05-11 23:27:31] <cehteh> we manage buffers provided by jack
[2011-05-11 23:27:49] <cehteh> if we cant render in time, we cant copy in time for sure
[2011-05-11 23:27:55] <ichthyo> ah... if you call that 'managing' then yes
[2011-05-11 23:28:33] <cehteh> so we have different memory backend, first our own mmaped persistent file storage
[2011-05-11 23:28:46] <cehteh> then later maybe memory on the gpu
[2011-05-11 23:28:37] <ichthyo> nah: 'managing' means owning, allocating, deallocating
[2011-05-11 23:29:12] <cehteh> well we ask jack for memory and we tell jack when we dont need it anymore
[2011-05-11 23:29:33] <cehteh> and i think i can do that better in the backend just like any other memory resource
[2011-05-11 23:29:40] <ichthyo> but actually I don't see why we should
[2011-05-11 23:29:49] <ichthyo> why can't we just cooperate with these services?
[2011-05-11 23:29:56] <ichthyo> as everyone else does too?
[2011-05-11 23:30:01] <cehteh> i call that cooperation?
[2011-05-11 23:30:41] <ichthyo> I don't see why the backend needs to pseudo-manage things which are just out of the scope,
and actually owned and managed by someone else?
[2011-05-11 23:30:49] <cehteh> the question is only if every single thing does this ad-hoc --
aka the gui cares for video buffers, the audio player cares for sound buffers,
proc cares for rendering buffers and so on
or we have one backend which cares about all buffers
the coding effort is almost the same
[2011-05-11 23:31:46] <cehteh> but we get one 'memory' service which can deliver different classes of memory
(and later easily adaptable/extendable to new technologies)
[2011-05-11 23:32:01] <ichthyo> I'd rather doubt that. In all those cases, we're using already existing
libraries and solutions. and we're rather integrating with them
[2011-05-11 23:32:23] <cehteh> yes so there is no much effort doing so ..
[2011-05-11 23:32:54] <ichthyo> that extends even more to the media libs, we're intend to use
[2011-05-11 23:32:55] <cehteh> but since the backend always knows what memory is in use it can do a clean shutdown
[2011-05-11 23:33:18] <cehteh> without all this callbacks and asyncronous messages
[2011-05-11 23:33:34] <ichthyo> not really
[2011-05-11 23:33:49] <ichthyo> if we use external services, we're bound to the terms of these
[2011-05-11 23:33:56] <ichthyo> same for external libraries
[2011-05-11 23:34:14] <cehteh> yes
[2011-05-11 23:35:04] <ichthyo> if we have a nice and blastingly fast mmaped file read and buffer handling for it than fine
[2011-05-11 23:35:41] <ichthyo> then I'd use that exactly for those sevices, which *we* write, provide and manage
[2011-05-11 23:36:08] <cehteh> possibly we just do it as you saying, and we may implement it in the way as i think later
(and then try out and compare) .. or stay with your way
[2011-05-11 23:37:29] <ichthyo> maybe yes... probably I'd concentrate first on that core part which we provide,
because I'd guess it is the most important one
i.e. reading those source media files and the like
[2011-05-11 23:37:46] <cehteh> well i have some reasons to do it in my way --
for example if you connect the viewer somewhere in the graph,
then it would be nice if it can transparently use memory on the graphics card
instead copying over. Or think about render nodes and network transparency later
[2011-05-11 23:38:48] <cehteh> but this is future and i think it is not a fundamental design decision can can be
incrementally added when it makes sense and turns out to work well
[2011-05-11 23:39:07] <cehteh> first i am going for the mmaped file access and nothing else
[2011-05-11 23:39:07] <ichthyo> yes, probably better approaching it that way
----------------------------
.-- explicit wait state on Jobs? --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-11 23:44:34] <ichthyo> another question.
[2011-05-11 23:44:51] <ichthyo> do our jobs have some mechanism to 'yield' or wait or similar?
[2011-05-11 23:45:10] <ichthyo> i.e. go in a wait state (and make room for other jobs to be scheduled meanwhile)?
[2011-05-11 23:45:34] <cehteh> waiting on other jobs
[2011-05-11 23:45:49] <cehteh> i am thinking if i make a generic waiting or only on jobs
[2011-05-11 23:45:54] <ichthyo> so you call into a funciton on the lumiera scheduler
[2011-05-11 23:45:55] <cehteh> i think only on jobs is good
[2011-05-11 23:46:06] <ichthyo> which blocks and reschedules other jobs meanwhile?
[2011-05-11 23:46:23] <cehteh> a running job?
[2011-05-11 23:46:34] <ichthyo> just brainstorming
[2011-05-11 23:46:45] <ichthyo> both is thinkable
[2011-05-11 23:46:56] <ichthyo> also it would be thinkable that we disallow any waits
[2011-05-11 23:47:03] <cehteh> nope i do not want that, rather split the jobs up into small pieces
[2011-05-11 23:47:13] <ichthyo> and just say, then the job function has to terminate and another job has to pick up
[2011-05-11 23:47:27] <cehteh> yes thats possible
[2011-05-11 23:48:00] <cehteh> but when a job runs it runs until its done (which might be a errorneous/abort on its own)
[2011-05-11 23:48:20] <cehteh> after running a job wont become rescheduled
[2011-05-11 23:48:49] <cehteh> if it turns out we need a yield i could implement it .. but not prematurely
[2011-05-11 23:49:44] <ichthyo> but likely for our purposes we don't even need that
[2011-05-11 23:50:16] <cehteh> yes and thats not domain of the scheduler
[2011-05-11 23:50:32] <cehteh> jobs can block anyways
[2011-05-11 23:50:40] <cehteh> in running state
[2011-05-11 23:50:53] <cehteh> no need to put them on a wait queue or whatever
[2011-05-11 23:51:31] <ichthyo> but of course the goal is to write them such that they don't block
[2011-05-11 23:52:11] <cehteh> and the only thing worthwile to wait for in a special wait state is for some other job
[2011-05-11 23:52:38] <cehteh> the next question is .. do we release this waiting jobs by some signal or by a job termination?
[2011-05-11 23:53:14] <cehteh> first can be more efficent and will be more complex
[2011-05-11 23:53:30] <cehteh> so for first i opt for the later, there is prolly anyways something to do
[2011-05-11 23:54:02] <ichthyo> how does this 'waiting' actually work?
[2011-05-11 23:54:16] <ichthyo> does the jobfunction call into some API of the scheduler?
[2011-05-11 23:54:21] <cehteh> i make a explicit waiting container (llist) jobs waiting sit there and are not scheduled
[2011-05-11 23:54:47] <cehteh> (or maybe that uses a priority queue to, to detect expired jobs)
[2011-05-11 23:55:02] <cehteh> the sheduler wraps the jobfunction
[2011-05-11 23:55:10] <ichthyo> ok
[2011-05-11 23:55:29] <ichthyo> so that means, he gets control only when the jobfunction exits
[2011-05-11 23:55:51] <cehteh> for simplicity and a first implementation yes i think that suffices
[2011-05-11 23:55:59] * ichthyo thinks the same
----------------------------
.-- Interfaces and components working together --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-12 00:01:37] <cehteh> so now we talked about the scheduler interface --
which isnt really the engine interface --
BUT: the job structure needs to carry all resources involved around
[2011-05-12 00:02:34] <cehteh> think abut the W there are more interfaces involved
[2011-05-12 00:02:43] <ichthyo> ok... that brings up another closely related question
[2011-05-12 00:02:59] <ichthyo> the engine interface needs something like these calculation streams
[2011-05-12 00:03:19] <ichthyo> that means, that the individual job needs to cary a marker, so it can be associated
to a specific stream
[2011-05-12 00:02:59] <cehteh> first, asking the backend for a frame
[2011-05-12 00:03:58] <cehteh> i add at least one generic void* to the job where you can put any data along
[2011-05-12 00:04:12] <cehteh> type safety on the level above please :P
[2011-05-12 00:05:20] <ichthyo> I'm fine with that
[2011-05-12 00:05:27] <cehteh> (caveat about the lifetime and ownership of this void*)
[2011-05-12 00:05:52] <cehteh> if the job owns it then we need also a cleanup hook there
(...)
[2011-05-12 00:10:44] <cehteh> next would be a interface how to setup a job... possibly in multiple stages
[2011-05-12 00:11:59] <cehteh> job_new(); job_wait_for(another_job); job_data()=some_calculation_stream;
[2011-05-12 00:12:06] <cehteh> job_arm()
[2011-05-12 00:12:14] <cehteh> something like that
[2011-05-12 00:12:38] <ichthyo> sounds ok
[2011-05-12 00:12:53] <cehteh> well .. now i think it becomes clear that 'jobs' are our
message passing interface between proc and backend
[2011-05-12 00:13:15] <cehteh> you dont ask the backend directly for a frame you schedule a job delivering a frame
[2011-05-12 00:13:29] <cehteh> the backend schedules a job rendering a frame if its not cached
[2011-05-12 00:13:35] <ichthyo> yes, my thinking too
(...)
[2011-05-12 00:14:50] <cehteh> so 'job' is a baseclass .. but there can be highlevel subclasses
cache_fetch_job and render_frame_job
[2011-05-12 00:15:04] <ichthyo> really?
[2011-05-12 00:15:11] <cehteh> i wonder -- makes sense or?
[2011-05-12 00:15:38] <ichthyo> *could* be done, but somehow goes against that simplicity
[2011-05-12 00:15:53] <cehteh> I mean each of this class shares a lot, how abortion is handled and more
[2011-05-12 00:16:43] <cehteh> Ok on the low level you can always put a job together with all the little
details needed and then arm it. I expect that we have maybe half a dozen classes of jobs
[2011-05-12 00:17:03] <ichthyo> not only on the low level. That would also be the correct OO aproach
[2011-05-12 00:17:14] <ichthyo> "prefer composition over inheritance"
[2011-05-12 00:17:53] <ichthyo> because, if you have a care_fetch_job, etc etc, you end up switching on types
[2011-05-12 00:18:13] <cehteh> ok .. leave it simple
[2011-05-12 00:18:27] <ichthyo> better investigate data at the start, and then assemble a job which can just run as-is
[2011-05-12 00:19:01] <cehteh> ok
----------------------------
.-- Responsibilities: who cares for what part --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-12 00:20:00] <ichthyo> to expand on that
[2011-05-12 00:20:11] <ichthyo> when we create a 'calculation stream'
[2011-05-12 00:20:18] <ichthyo> we get the following informations:
[2011-05-12 00:20:30] <ichthyo> - the timings (frame duration, stepping)
[2011-05-12 00:20:36] <ichthyo> - the exit node to use
[2011-05-12 00:20:42] <cehteh> I wonder if i have to care anything about a caclulation stream --
thats purely a player/render thing
[2011-05-12 00:21:15] <ichthyo> *If* your realm just starts at the scheduler, then the answer is "no"
[2011-05-12 00:21:22] <ichthyo> then you don't have to care for that
[2011-05-12 00:21:42] <ichthyo> that means, I would implement that engine interface, kindof like a facade
[2011-05-12 00:21:43] <cehteh> except i would prolly take some hints for optimization
[2011-05-12 00:22:17] <cehteh> so you can add at least add flags like ONESHOT, FORWARD, BACKWARD, RANDOM
[2011-05-12 00:22:19] <ichthyo> taking that approach would mean that I would also have to set up the times for the jobs, right?
[2011-05-12 00:27:39] <ichthyo> where starts the part which you care for?
[2011-05-12 00:27:59] <ichthyo> did I understand you correct, that you rather don't want to care for the calculation streams
[2011-05-12 00:28:07] <ichthyo> the callbacks and this stuff?
[2011-05-12 00:28:31] <cehteh> yes i think you can abstract them better, you have knowledge about the session and user interaction
[2011-05-12 00:28:37] <ichthyo> (I have no problem taking that responsibility, and implement it on top of the bare jobs)
[2011-05-12 00:29:38] <ichthyo> so that means, that I will also care for setting up the render nodes/invocation,
before packaging that into a job function, right?
[2011-05-12 00:29:57] <ichthyo> which would make sense, because I also implemented the render nodes themselves
[2011-05-12 00:30:02] <cehteh> yes
[2011-05-12 00:28:50] <ichthyo> ok
----------------------------
.-- Dedicated Time facility --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-12 00:22:48] <cehteh> we once talked about that we want a timer facility (outside of player)
[2011-05-12 00:23:16] <cehteh> and a 3rd prio queue in the scheduler which is short and hard(er) realtime
[2011-05-12 00:23:21] <ichthyo> because e.g. we need such for animating the GUI
[2011-05-12 00:23:28] <ichthyo> i.e. show the playback position
[2011-05-12 00:23:29] <cehteh> but only the player knows the times
[2011-05-12 00:24:18] <cehteh> this 'timer' possibly wont be singleton too .. you can play unrelated things in parallel
[2011-05-12 00:24:51] <ichthyo> well... I'd rather expect that to be quite similar to the jobs
[2011-05-12 00:25:26] <cehteh> well i wonder if the normal jobs become bit more heavyweight
[2011-05-12 00:25:40] <cehteh> and the high prio queue gets its own interface
[2011-05-12 00:26:00] <cehteh> no full blown jobs, no waiting (inter-jobs)
[2011-05-12 00:26:10] <ichthyo> what do you think to add to the normal jobs, beyond what we just discussed?
[2011-05-12 00:26:15] <ichthyo> ah maybe the dependencies
[2011-05-12 00:26:23] <ichthyo> but besides that?
[2011-05-12 00:29:03] <cehteh> so there will be the full blown jobs
[2011-05-12 00:29:27] <cehteh> which can record dependencies on other jobs, have their state, a jobfunction
(...)
[2011-05-12 00:34:00] <cehteh> the exact setup for scheduling will likely become little more complicated
[2011-05-12 00:34:46] <cehteh> you dont just set a time when to render but timespans and priorities,
possibly twice for each queue -- at least my plan is that a job can be in the
background render queue and in the high prio queue (we should give this a better name) at once
[2011-05-12 00:36:52] <cehteh> this interface needs to be discussed ... but for now it suffices that we know its there
[2011-05-12 00:37:08] <cehteh> (also a reason to make the tinyjobs which are much simpler)
----------------------------
.-- animating the GUI during playback --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-12 00:41:34] <ichthyo> cehteh: how would you deal with that 'animating' of the gui during playback?
[2011-05-12 00:41:49] <ichthyo> that is, updating the time, moving the playhead cursor etc.
[2011-05-12 00:42:02] <ichthyo> could that be a job too?
[2011-05-12 00:42:38] <cehteh> well summarize:
[2011-05-12 00:43:08] <cehteh> we use the 'normal' queues for rendering .. there are job dependencies which
eventually yield in a frame rendered. The actualy 'playout' whatever that means
is done by the realtime tinyjobs from a special time-syncronized queue
[2011-05-12 00:44:32] <cehteh> this is continutation based
[2011-05-12 00:45:09] <cehteh> the last thing in the normal queues is setup this playout (if still in time)
[2011-05-12 00:45:43] <cehteh> blinking the gui doesnt need to be hard realtime it could be set up there too --
or can you inject gui messages from other threads?
[2011-05-12 00:46:56] <ichthyo> in GTK, you invoke so called "signals"
which are functors. And they are wired such that the actual function
is then dispatched from the event thread
you can create that signals from any thread
GTK cares to execute them through his event mechanism
[2011-05-12 00:48:44] <cehteh> this signals can carry some payload (rendered thumbnail?)
[2011-05-12 00:48:56] <ichthyo> they are function objects
[2011-05-12 00:49:02] <ichthyo> so they can do anything they want
[2011-05-12 00:49:32] <ichthyo> typically you bind a method from some existing object
[2011-05-12 00:50:50] <cehteh> so we may add a notification layer there to give it the right distance for abstraction --
and the gui can maybe subscribe to certain notification as well as things which are
queried by the gui are send back there
[2011-05-12 00:51:07] <ichthyo> yes, my thinking too
[2011-05-12 00:51:02] <ichthyo> for our problem that means that there will be some signal(s) to update the timecode
[2011-05-12 00:51:23] <ichthyo> there is already even an interface called "GuiNotificationFacade"
[2011-05-12 00:51:30] <ichthyo> its defined through the interface system
[2011-05-12 00:51:41] <ichthyo> just Joel didn't get around filling it with life
[2011-05-12 00:51:51] <ichthyo> that was shortly before he left
(...)
[2011-05-12 00:56:13] <cehteh> and anything not sound and video playback, just gui update related can be lets say 50ms
off time -- for sure it would be a bit pita when automation curves lag noticeable
[2011-05-12 00:56:55] <ichthyo> so it could even be enqueued with a lower priority than frame calculations scheduled
for the same time
[2011-05-12 00:58:28] <ichthyo> well... cinelerra e.g. scrolls the whole timeline pane keeping the cursor in the middle
[2011-05-12 00:58:36] <cehteh> there are no much things which are time constraind in the gui but not video or sound
[2011-05-12 00:58:37] <ichthyo> this is nice for the handling
[2011-05-12 00:58:46] <cehteh> and depend on backend/proc
[2011-05-12 00:59:16] <ichthyo> anyway... that means that there might be thumbnails to process, and I take it that we
handle that somehow through our engine as well, just with lower priority
[2011-05-12 00:59:23] <cehteh> yes that costs a lot performance there ..
[2011-05-12 01:00:01] <ichthyo> as a *user* I really don't know what to prefer
[2011-05-12 01:00:10] <cehteh> btw if frames or thumbnails have higher priority might be a feature of 'perspectives'
[2011-05-12 01:00:24] <ichthyo> an application which burns quite some resources, but gets me a steady updating display
[2011-05-12 01:00:44] <ichthyo> or an application which freezes every 10 seconds when the cursor hits the right window border
[2011-05-12 01:00:54] <cehteh> haha
[2011-05-12 01:00:56] <ichthyo> (e.g. ardour has this behaviour)
[2011-05-12 01:00:59] <cehteh> neither is good
[2011-05-12 01:02:03] <ichthyo> probably the best solution (also the rather expensive to implement) is to make that GUI
update in several stages, and each with a different priority
[2011-05-12 01:02:22] <ichthyo> e.g. a wireframe has high priority, thumbnails and waveforms have low priority
[2011-05-12 01:03:29] <cehteh> well the timeline can be rendere into an extra canvas .. then displaying it with scrolling
is certainly more efficent than redraw it completely 60 times a second
[2011-05-12 01:03:37] <ichthyo> well... you could skip the thumbnails, yet still have an animated cursor and running timecode
[2011-05-12 01:04:15] <cehteh> yes but you dont need to care in the gui .. you just send the jobs with configured piority
and deadline and render when the data arrives
[2011-05-12 01:04:29] <ichthyo> yeah, thats what I mean
(...)
[2011-05-12 01:06:06] <cehteh> i am not gui programmer
[2011-05-12 01:06:53] <cehteh> but if, i would make a timeline in a canvas (or even multiple layers,
automation on top) and render that in background even with some safe areas around
which are not visible, then scolling in is just a fast hardware operation.
[2011-05-12 01:07:36] <ichthyo> exactly, thats the way I think we should do it
[2011-05-12 01:07:51] <cehteh> well i was already suprised that no one pre-renders menus when the mouse is hovering
over them and when the user clicks displaying them in instant
[2011-05-12 01:07:52] <ichthyo> ok... the key point is to do that rendering asynchroneously
[2011-05-12 01:08:05] <cehteh> thats how i would do it
[2011-05-12 01:08:47] <ichthyo> makes many GUI programmers feel queasy
[2011-05-12 01:08:58] <cehteh> hey we all like snappy guis
[2011-05-12 01:09:48] <ichthyo> actually, I must say it's kind of embarrasing when we consider the level of
functionality provided by many GUI toolkits even today
[2011-05-12 01:10:30] <ichthyo> basically the technology from 20 years ago
[2011-05-12 01:10:35] <cehteh> yes
[2011-05-12 01:10:53] <cehteh> and even with wayland and all new things it not going to change that fundamentals
[2011-05-12 01:11:02] <ichthyo> yes, indeed
[2011-05-12 01:11:20] <ichthyo> that is just an attempt to make that old model running faster, by offloading to the hardware
[2011-05-12 01:12:03] <cehteh> i would like a compositor on the toolkit level ... not as window server
[2011-05-12 01:13:14] <ichthyo> yes
[2011-05-12 01:13:19] <ichthyo> and even more
[2011-05-12 01:13:28] <ichthyo> the parts should be composed in a functional way
[2011-05-12 01:13:47] <ichthyo> and the toolkit would then invoke that functors in the right order and async
[2011-05-12 01:13:53] <cehteh> yep
----------------------------
.-- interaction between proc and backend --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-12 01:14:46] <cehteh> the 'actual' interfaces how the backend queries a frame from proc and how proc
asks the backend for a frame .. do we need to work this out?
But i think about not working it offically out at all in a big way,
this interfaces prolly just happen and can be improved in small details
[2011-05-12 01:16:10] <ichthyo> in the (half finished) code in the ProcNode, I used placeholder / facade interfaces
[2011-05-12 01:16:21] <ichthyo> that is enough to set up the backbone
[2011-05-12 01:16:52] <ichthyo> that is, for node -> backend (to get a frame)
[2011-05-12 01:17:12] <cehteh> ah ok
[2011-05-12 01:17:18] <ichthyo> the other one will turn out, when I care for wiring up such a job, as we discussed today
[2011-05-12 01:17:31] <ichthyo> that is engine/player -> proc
[2011-05-12 01:17:50] <ichthyo> "node invocation interface"
[2011-05-12 01:18:22] <ichthyo> well, personally I think I'll first concentrate on the player, to get a rough outline there
[2011-05-12 01:18:36] <cehteh> yes that will show us the requirements
[2011-05-12 01:19:15] <ichthyo> and if I recall right, you were rather engaged into the framecache / frame database
[2011-05-12 01:20:10] <cehteh> the general interface is simple (in my head) .. but there are some dirty corners to worked out
(...)
[2011-05-12 01:20:48] <cehteh> if proc asks the backend for a frame, the backend may ask proc for rendering it --
and this going pingpoing with all dependenices, but the inital query must provide enough
information to construct all of the rest which involves setting up jobs which need
deadlines and priorities
[2011-05-12 01:22:05] <cehteh> or we may rethink this somehow
[2011-05-12 01:22:17] <cehteh> doing the ping-pong more in the higher levels
[2011-05-12 01:22:26] <cehteh> (no W then)
[2011-05-12 01:22:56] <ichthyo> well... still a W, but between two function levels a bit higher then
[2011-05-12 01:22:59] <cehteh> asking the cache if it has a frame, if not then the initiator is responsible
for setting up the rendering job
[2011-05-12 01:23:08] <cehteh> might become a M then :)
[2011-05-12 01:23:15] <ichthyo> yes, kindof that
[2011-05-12 01:23:56] <cehteh> well this needs some careful thinking --
thats an important design decision we can not easily revert
[2011-05-12 01:26:00] <ichthyo> well... until now I've kept that decision rather flexible.
That is, in the part I wrote in the nodes
[2011-05-12 01:26:40] <cehteh> for now .. eventually this becomes nailed down
[2011-05-12 01:27:35] <ichthyo> you recall, there was the controversy if we should split and schedule
every calculation step, even if it doesn't include fetching some aditional data
[2011-05-12 01:28:43] <cehteh> huh? ... well it wasnt about the fetching it was about finer granulared planning for rendering
[2011-05-12 01:29:00] <cehteh> note that when you render too early the caches cool down (or fetch too early)
[2011-05-12 01:29:59] <cehteh> so i was about discovery before fetching, and fetching in time, and then rendering
[2011-05-12 01:30:12] <cehteh> and possibly add some more steps as need arises
[2011-05-12 01:30:27] <ichthyo> yes... that was kind of the middle ground we agreed on
[2011-05-12 01:31:10] <ichthyo> I retained the possibility to decide if and where a chain of calculations for a single
frame should be split and scheduled as separate jobs
[2011-05-12 01:31:24] <cehteh> ah
[2011-05-12 01:34:15] <cehteh> run only the heavy lifting in single jobs
[2011-05-12 01:34:38] <ichthyo> I allways assume that 1 frame is one job
[2011-05-12 01:34:40] <ichthyo> at least
[2011-05-12 01:34:53] <cehteh> well refine 'rendering one frame is one job'
[2011-05-12 01:35:02] <ichthyo> the controversy was to what extend a single frame should be split into multiple jobs
[2011-05-12 01:35:10] <cehteh> i dont care if discovery over a sequence is one job for multiple frames
[2011-05-12 01:36:54] <ichthyo> at that point (more than a year ago), you insisted that every calculation
be done in a separate job, and I didn't agree to that
[2011-05-12 01:37:00] <cehteh> yes
[2011-05-12 01:37:08] <ichthyo> that is, even if its just the application of yet another effect to the same frame
[2011-05-12 01:37:09] <cehteh> i think we can try out and see
[2011-05-12 01:37:16] <ichthyo> yes, that was the conclusion
[2011-05-12 01:37:37] <ichthyo> while it is pretty much clear that the fetching of data should be a separate job; i.e. the IO wait
[2011-05-12 01:39:12] <cehteh> prolly scales well this way, but we may need refinements for branches in the graph
[2011-05-12 01:39:41] <ichthyo> especially for those cases, which combine several frames (e.g. time average, motion tracking)
----------------------------
.-- handling of prerequisite ressources --
[caption="☉Transcript☉ "]
----------------------------
[2011-05-12 01:43:35] <cehteh> resource transfer .. we talked about that
[2011-05-12 01:43:46] <cehteh> waiting for resources not jobs
[2011-05-12 01:44:26] <ichthyo> yes, of course .... I took that for granted
[2011-05-12 01:44:44] <ichthyo> otherwise it wouldn't make sense to have a separate job for fetching input data
[2011-05-12 01:45:09] <cehteh> well you remember the that writing has to be committed .. and then i wanted a short circuit to transfer a resource to another receiver than giving it back to the backend
[2011-05-12 01:47:31] <cehteh> if you want to accumulate render jobs then i strongly opt for doing this vertically (if ever)
[2011-05-12 01:47:40] <cehteh> never horizontally
[2011-05-12 01:47:43] <ichthyo> yes
[2011-05-12 01:48:11] <ichthyo> with the exception you just mentioned: planning further jobs could be done in a sway for a segment of time
[2011-05-12 01:48:44] <cehteh> yes but with a limit .. not a full sequence from the session
[2011-05-12 01:48:49] <ichthyo> e.g. the 2* 25 jobs for the next second
[2011-05-12 01:49:03] <ichthyo> (2 per frame, one for the resourece, one for the calculation)
[2011-05-12 01:49:08] <ichthyo> in a typical standard case
[2011-05-12 01:49:28] <ichthyo> and then add a followup job to schedule the next jobs for the next second
[2011-05-12 01:49:40] <ichthyo> just as an example
[2011-05-12 01:49:52] <cehteh> lets say dont run discovery for more than 20 frames .. and dont fetch more than 5 frames and render every single frame
[2011-05-12 01:50:07] <cehteh> even if the span between cuts is longer
[2011-05-12 01:50:22] <cehteh> this values of course may be configureable
[2011-05-12 01:50:26] <ichthyo> and its clear that the actual numbers are for optimisation
----------------------------

323
doc/devel/meeting_summary/index.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,323 @@
Past Meetings
=============
//Menu: sort children descending
Not all meetings gets summarized on this page. For example, there are no meeting
summaries at all available for 2010. This only means that there were not enough
things that needed deciding/documenting during these meetings to warrant someone
spending time on the task of writing a summary.
Anyone interested in Lumiera development is also encouraged to read mailing list
archives and other documentation.
11 May 2011
-----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* detailed technical discussion about the Render Engine Interface
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2011-05-11.html[IRC Transcript (prepared by Ichthyo)]
13 Apr 2011
-----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* New Website Page Layout
+
liquid layout -- scrolling -- colours
* Website licensing and legal questions
* Trac spam
* Go through Ideas and Drafts in design process
+
accepted: ForwardIterator, HighLevelModel, Placement concept, Session structure
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2011-04-13.html[Summary (written by Hermann Voßeler)]
9 Mar 2011
----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* The New Website
* IRC Logs
* VoIP discussions over Mumble?
* Version numbering
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2011-03-09.html[Summary (written by Stefan Kangas)]
.informal meetings, no summaries
********
In 2010, the monthly meetings where rather informal gatherings,
without any relevant decisions beyond the organisation of conference activities.
During that time, usually the two remaining Lumiera core developers where alternatively
either prevented by real-life obligations, or otherwise just in ``deep coding mode''
********
9 Sep 2009
----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* FrOSCon
* Funding
* Website
* Ticket Query Clean-up
* Coding
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2009-09-09.html[Summary (written by raffa and Ichthyo)]
14 Jan 2009
-----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* organisational (protocol, agenda, leftovers?)
* Logo Contest results, elaborating the winner concept
* Forming a Workflow group
* Set up a Trac for issue tracking
* Getting the \'non-coders' community to help
* Possible GUI-Integration: Display a frame?
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2009-01-14.html[Summary (written by raffa)]
10 Dec 2008
-----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* organisational (protocol, agenda, leftovers?)
* Logo Contest progress, discussion about how to do the pre selection
* rename "EDL" into "Sequence"
* link:DesignProcess/TimelineSequenceOutput[Project, Timeline(s), Sequence(s) and Output]
* GUI/Proc Interface and collaboration
* Threading questions regarding gtk-main and main()
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2008-12-10.html[Summary (written by Teld)]
12 Nov 2008
-----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* organisational (protocol, agenda, leftovers?)
* Logo Contest progress
* uWiki Progress
* Builddrone, any helpers?
* Platform and lib dependency status
* Discussion about foreseeable problems with Gui Plugins
* Include dir and namespaces
* build system, plugin tree
Summary
^^^^^^^
_(missing)_
10 Oct 2008
-----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* organisational (protocol, agenda...)
* Lumiera Logo
* Design Process: Go through Ideas and Drafts
- Mistakes to avoid
- Tag clouds
- Lumiera Architecture
- EDLs as meta-clips
- Builder
- Lua scripting language
- Time handling
- Interface naming
* Config System (1st version landed)
* Use of Namespaces
* Interface Definition Language
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2008-10-10.html[Summary (written by Ichthyo)]
4 Sep 2008
----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* boilerplate (protocol, agenda, ...)
* Plugin Descriptors
* Mailinglist, setup, administration
* Lumiera-work Mailinglist (for TODOs)
* About Website transition plan
Summary
^^^^^^^
_(missing)_
7 Aug 2008
----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* Go through Ideas and Drafts in design process
* Config System (in the works)
* Scripting language plans
* GUI brainstorming page
Summary
^^^^^^^
_(missing)_
6 Jul 2008
----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* boilerplate (protocol, what's left from last meeting)
* Introduction of Lumiera
* handling of config errors.
* scripting language.
* editing on small devices (eeePC)
* uWiki.
* 'musical' timeline in bars and beats
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2008-07-06.html[Summary (written by Teld)]
6 Jun 2008
----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* boilerplate (protocol, what's left from last meeting)
* Go through Ideas and Drafts in design process
- processing node interface
- Placement concept
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2008-06-06.html[Summary (written by ichthyo)]
8 May 2008
----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* boilerplate (protocol, what's left from last meeting)
* Go through Ideas and Drafts in design process
* Website infrastructure
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2008-05-08.html[Summary (written by cehteh)]
3 Apr 2008
----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* boilerplate (protocol, what's left from last meeting)
* Go through Ideas and Drafts in design process
* Call for volunteers (which tasks are to do, how can we interest people) for wiki/todo.html
* Project announcements/registration (freshmeat, gnu, etc...) any takers?
* Informal talk about the GUI (We have some people who want to contribute now, what's going on, how can they start)
* froscon application (linux multimedia booth?)
* timecode-metadata discussion: convert to arithmetic time type early or late?
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2008-04-03.html[Summary (written by sakalli)]
6 Mar 2008
----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* boilerplate (protocol, whats left from last meeting, next meeting)
* Go through Ideas and Drafts in design process
* "Call for design" for some features relevant for the whole Application:
- parameters and automation
- render node interface
- handling of compound sessions
- session storage interface in general
* Project name
* Project Server, setup, organization, administration
* GPL3 pros cons, license rationale
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2008-03-06.html[Summary (written by cehteh)]
1 Feb 2008
----------
Topics
~~~~~~
* Who will write the protocol below
* Discuss the open points in link:Lumiera/DesignProcess[] do we need this formalism?
* Who works on what, what are the short term goals, what tasks are open
* State of the new-name search for the was-intended-as-cinelerra-3 project (no name discussion, just how we will progress!)
* Introduce the development model
* How to handle the regular meetings in future (day, time, where to put summaries)
Summary
^^^^^^^
* link:2008-02-01.html[Summary (written by Ichthyo)]

5
doc/devel/rfc.txt
View file

@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ Design Process
==============
//Menu: include rfc
//Menu: include rfc_parked
//Menu: include rfc_pending
//Menu: include rfc_dropped
@ -9,7 +10,7 @@ Design Process
How it Works
------------
Design Process entries (RfC) can be created by anyone.
Design Process entries (Request for Comment) can be created by anyone.
Each entry goes through several stages until it's accepted (or rejected).
All our RfC entries are filed here, either in the link:rfc/index.html[RfC accepted] section,
or as link:rfc_pending/index.html[pending RfC] or as link:rfc_dropped/index.html[RfC dropped].
@ -37,6 +38,6 @@ Handling of RfC entries in practice
.Adding a new Proposal:
. Check if there is no similar proposal below! If yes, contact it's author and contribute to that one.
. Think of a good/descriptive _Name-ID_ for the Proposal. It will be used to create a RfC sub-page, so no embedded spaces please.
. [red,yellow]#!TODO!# _please describe how to use the +rfc.sh+ here_.
. Use the './admin/rfc.sh' helper script to maintain the RFC's. Check out its link:../technical/infra/rfcsh.html[documentation].

25
doc/devel/rfc/CodingStyle.txt
View file

@ -52,30 +52,14 @@ Tasks
* footers (or headers) to configure common editors to use this style by default
Pros
^^^^
Cons
^^^^
Alternatives
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rationale
~~~~~~~~~
Conclusion
----------
we agreed on GNU style
-- link:ct[] [[DateTime(2007-07-03T04:04:22Z)]]
CT:: '2007-07-03 04:04'
@ -88,6 +72,8 @@ think all other reasons will lead us to nowhere!
Although I'm used to a BSD/KNF-like coding style I will try the GNU one. After
all, the wikipedia page mentions no disadvantages of that style :)
MichaelPloujnikov:: '2007-06-27 17:17'
I just proposed K&R because it is widely accepted. Personally, I was never very
fond of K&R style, I always prefered putting opening braces to the left. I
@ -96,5 +82,8 @@ ECLIPSE comes with presets for all this styles :-P ). Anyhow, I can adapt to
most any style. The only thing I really dislike is using tabs (with the
exeption of database DDLs and CSound files, where tab are actually helpful) :)
Ichthyo:: '2007-06-27 20:55'
''''
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

29
doc/devel/rfc_pending/LumieraForwardIterator.txt → doc/devel/rfc/LumieraForwardIterator.txt
View file

@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Design Process: Lumiera Forward Iterator
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Final_
*Date* _2009-11-01_
*Proposed by* link:Ichthyostega[]
-------------------------------------
@ -94,7 +94,8 @@ relies on that interface for discovering session contents. Besides that, we
need more implementation experience.
Some existing iterators or collection-style interfaces should be retro-fitted.
See http://issues.lumiera.org/ticket/349[Ticket #349]. + Moreover, we need to
See http://issues.lumiera.org/ticket/349[Ticket #349]. +
Moreover, we need to
gain experience about mapping this concept down into a flat C-style API.
@ -133,6 +134,30 @@ compromising the clean APIs.
Comments
--------
//comments: append below
Now in use since more then a year, without turning up any serious problems.
The only _minor concern_ I can see is that this concept, as such, doesn't solve
the problem with exposing implementation details of the underlying container on the API.
Similar to STL Iterators, the actual implementation representation is only disguised
behind a 'typedef'. But, generally speaking, this is an inevitable consequence of the
``zero overhead'' abstraction. For the cases when an indirection (via VTable) is feasible,
I've created the 'IterSource' template, which sticks to this Lumiera Forward Iterator
concept, but provides an opaque frontend, allowing to decouple completely from the
actual implementation. Besides that, over time I've written several standard adapters
for the most common STL containers, plus Map, key and value extractors.
Ichthyostega:: 'Sa 16 Apr 2011 00:20:13 CEST'
//endof_comments:
Final
~~~~~
Accepted on developer meeting
Do 14 Apr 2011 02:52:30 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

12
doc/devel/rfc_pending/MarbleMode.txt → doc/devel/rfc/MarbleMode.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Final_
*Date* _2008-10-10_
*Proposed by* link:Ichthyostega[]
-------------------------------------
@ -133,5 +133,15 @@ should actively support both working styles.
Comments
--------
Final
~~~~~
Everyone likes this and we want to have this. But this is rather a concept
which needs a lot more discussion for the implementation. Further details may
follow where these thingsare worked out.
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:06:42 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

10
doc/devel/rfc_pending/ProcHighLevelModel.txt → doc/devel/rfc/ProcHighLevelModel.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Draft_
*State* _Final_
*Date* _2008-08-16_
*Proposed by* link:Ichthyostega[]
-------------------------------------
@ -240,4 +240,12 @@ Comments
--------
Final
~~~~~
Description of the Lumiera high level model as is.
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:06:42 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

8
doc/devel/rfc_pending/ProcPlacementMetaphor.txt → doc/devel/rfc/ProcPlacementMetaphor.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Final_
*Date* _2008-03-06_
*Proposed by* link:Ichthyostega[]
-------------------------------------
@ -228,4 +228,10 @@ benchmark in more ways than one, for some time.
. --link:Tree[][[DateTime(2008-08-23T12:54:00NZ)]].
Final
~~~~~
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:06:42 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

2
doc/devel/rfc_pending/Roadmap-first.txt → doc/devel/rfc/Roadmap-first.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Final_
*Date* _2009-01-30_
*Proposed by* link:Ichthyostega[]
-------------------------------------

9
doc/devel/rfc_pending/ThreadsSignalsAndImportantManagementTasks.txt → doc/devel/rfc/ThreadsSignalsAndImportantManagementTasks.txt
View file

@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Threads, Signals and important management tasks
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Final_
*Date* _Sat Jul 24 21:59:02 2010_
*Proposed by* Christian Thaeter <ct@pipapo.org>
-------------------------------------
@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ having one dedicated signal handling thread. Moreover it makes sense that the
initial thread does this signal handling.
For Lumiera I propose to follow this practice and extend it a little by
dedicating the initial thread to some management tasks. These are:
dedicate a thread to some management tasks. These are:
* signal handling, see below.
* resource management (resource-collector), waiting on a condition variable or
message queue to execute actions.
@ -155,5 +155,10 @@ Comments
--------
//comments: append below
.State -> Final
ichthyo wants this to be a dedicated thread (own subsystem) instead running in
the initial thread. Fixed this in the proposal above, this makes this accepted.
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:40:41 CEST Christian Thaeter <ct@pipapo.org>
//endof_comments:

83
doc/devel/rfc_pending/TimelineSequenceOutput.txt → doc/devel/rfc/TimelineSequenceOutput.txt
View file

@ -1,56 +1,63 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Final_
*Date* _2008-11-03_
*Proposed by* link:Ichthyostega[]
-------------------------------------
.Summary
****************************************************************************
The Session or Project contains multiple top-level *Timeline* elements.
These provide an (output)configuration and global busses, while the actual
content _and the tree of tracks_ is contained in *Sequences*.
These can also be used as *meta clips* and thus nested arbitrarily.
****************************************************************************
Relation of Project, Timeline(s), Sequence(s) and Output generation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the course of our discussions it meanwhile became clear, that Lumiera will
show multiple ''timeline-like'' views within one project. Similarly it's clear
now that we will support [wiki:self:../EDLsAreMetaClips nested Sequences as
meta-clips]. The purpose of this entry is to try to settle on some definitions
show multiple _timeline-like_ views within one project. Similarly it's clear
now that we will support link:EDLsAreMetaClips.html[nested Sequences as meta-clips].
The purpose of this entry is to try to settle on some definitions
and clarify the relationships between these concepts.
Definitions
~~~~~~~~~~~
Project:: the top-level context in which all edit work is done over an
Project:: the top-level context in which all edit work is done over an
extended period of time. The Project can be saved and re-opened. It is
comprised of the collection of all things the user is working on, it contains
all informations, assets, state and objects to be edited.
Session:: the current in-memory representation of the Project when opened
Session:: the current in-memory representation of the Project when opened
within an instance of Lumiera. This is an implementation-internal term. For
the GUI and the users POV we should always prefer the term "Project" for the
general concept.
Timeline:: the top level element within the Project. It is visible within a
''timeline view'' in the GUI and represents the effective (resulting)
Timeline:: the top level element within the Project. It is visible within a
_timeline view_ in the GUI and represents the effective (resulting)
arrangement of media objects, resolved to a finite time axis, to be rendered
for output or viewed in a Monitor (viewer window). Timeline(s) are top-level
and may not be further combined. A timeline is comprised of:
* a time axis in abolute time (WIP: not clear if this is an entity or just a
conceptual definition)
* a ''!PlayController''
* a list of global ''Pipes'' representing the possible outputs (master
* a _PlayController_
* a list of global _Pipes_ representing the possible outputs (master
busses)
* exactly one top-level ''Sequence,'' which in turn may contain further
* exactly one top-level _Sequence_, which in turn may contain further
nested Sequences
Timeline View:: a view in the GUI featuring a given timeline. There might be
Timeline View:: a view in the GUI featuring a given timeline. There might be
multiple views of the same timeline, all sharing the same !PlayController. A
proposed extension is the ability to ''focus'' a timeline view to a
proposed extension is the ability to _focus_ a timeline view to a
sub-Sequence contained within the top-level sequence of the underlying
Timeline. (Intended for editing meta-clips)
Sequence:: A collection of ''MObjects'' placed onto a tree of tracks. (this
entity was former named ''EDL'' -- an alternative name would be
''Arrangement'' ). By means of this placement, the objects could be anchored
Sequence:: A collection of _MObjects_ placed onto a tree of tracks. (this
entity was former named _EDL_ -- an alternative name would be
_Arrangement_ ). By means of this placement, the objects could be anchored
relative to each other, relative to external objects, absolute in time.
Placement and routing information can be inherited down the track tree, and
missing information is filled in by configuration rules. This way, a sequence
@ -60,26 +67,26 @@ Definitions
just a single root track and sends directly to the master busses of the
timeline.
Pipe:: the conceptual building block of the high-level model. It can be
thought of as simple linear processing chain. A stream can be ''sent to'' a
pipe, in which case it will be mixed in at the input, and you can ''plug'' the
Pipe:: the conceptual building block of the high-level model. It can be
thought of as simple linear processing chain. A stream can be _sent to_ a
pipe, in which case it will be mixed in at the input, and you can _plug_ the
output of a pipe to another destination. Further, effects or processors can be
attached to the pipe. Besides the global pipes (busses) in each Timeline, each
clip automatically creates N pipes (one for each distinct content stream, i.e.
normally N=2, namely video and audio)
link:PlayController[]:: coordinating playback, cueing and rewinding of a
''!PlayheadCursor'' (or multiple in case there are multiple views and or
PlayController:: coordinating playback, cueing and rewinding of a
_PlayheadCursor_ (or multiple in case there are multiple views and or
monitors), and at the same time directing a render process to deliver the
media data needed for playback. Actually, the implementation of the
!PlayController(s) is assumed to live in the backend.
PlayController(s) is assumed to live in the backend.
link:RenderTask[]:: basically a !PlayController, but collecting output
RenderTask:: basically a !PlayController, but collecting output
directly, without moving a !PlayheadCursor (maybe a progress indicator) and
not operating in a timed fashion, but freewheeling or in background mode
Monitor:: a viewer window to be attached to a timeline. When attached, a
monitor reflects the state of the timeline's !PlayController, and it attaches
Monitor/Viewer:: a viewer window to be attached to a timeline. When attached, a
monitor reflects the state of the timeline's PlayController, and it attaches
to the timeline's global pipes by stream-type match, showing video as monitor
image and sending audio to the system audio port (Alsa or Jack). Possible
extensions are for a monitor to be able to attach to probe points within the
@ -91,7 +98,7 @@ Definitions
Relations
~~~~~~~~~
image:images/fig132741.png[Relation of Project Timeline Sequence Output]
image:{imgd}/ProjectTimelineSequenceUML.png[UML: Relation of Project, Timeline, Sequence and Output]
@ -99,7 +106,7 @@ image:images/fig132741.png[Relation of Project Timeline Sequence Output]
* this UML shows the relation of concepts, not so much their implementation
* within one Project, we may have multiple independent timelines and at the
same time we may have multiple views of the same timeline.
* all playhead displays within different views linked to the ''same''
* all playhead displays within different views linked to the _same_
underlying timeline are effectively linked together, as are all GUI widgets
representing the same !PlayController owned by a single timeline.
* I am proposing to do it this way per default, because it seems to be a best
@ -108,7 +115,7 @@ image:images/fig132741.png[Relation of Project Timeline Sequence Output]
* the timeline view is modeled to be a sub-concept of "timeline" and thus can
stand-in. Thus, to start with, for the GUI it doesn't make any difference if
it talks to a timeline view or a timeline.
* each timeline ''refers'' to a (top-level) sequence. I.e. the sequences
* each timeline _refers_ to a (top-level) sequence. I.e. the sequences
themselves are owned by the project, and theoretically it's possible to refer
to the same sequence from multiple timelines directly and indirectly.
* besides, it's also possible to create multiple independent timelines -— in
@ -116,11 +123,11 @@ image:images/fig132741.png[Relation of Project Timeline Sequence Output]
configuration gives the ability to play the same arrangement in parallel with
multiple independent play controllers (and thus independent playhead
positions)
* to complement this possibilities, I'd propose to give the ''timeline view''
* to complement this possibilities, I'd propose to give the _timeline view_
the possibility to be focussed (re-linked) to a sub-sequence. This way, it
would stay connected to the main play control, but at the same time show a
sub-sequence ''in the way it will be treated as embedded within the top-level
sequence.'' This would be the default operation mode when a meta-clip is
sub-sequence _in the way it will be treated as embedded within the top-level
sequence._ This would be the default operation mode when a meta-clip is
opened (and showed in a separate tab with such a linked timeline view). The
reason for this proposed handling is again to give the user the least
surprising behaviour. Because, when -— on the contrary -— the
@ -129,8 +136,8 @@ image:images/fig132741.png[Relation of Project Timeline Sequence Output]
reserved for advanced use, e.g. when multiple editors cooperate on a single
project and a sequence has to be prepared in isolation prior to being
integrated in the global sequence (featuring the whole movie).
* one rather unconventional feature to be noted is that the ''tracks'' are
within the ''sequences'' and not on the level of the global busses as in most
* one rather unconventional feature to be noted is that the _tracks_ are
within the _sequences_ and not on the level of the global busses as in most
other video and audio editors. The rationale is that this allows for fully
exploiting the tree-structure, even when working with large and compound
projects, it allows for sequences being local clusters of objects including
@ -141,10 +148,10 @@ image:images/fig132741.png[Relation of Project Timeline Sequence Output]
Tasks
^^^^^
* Interfaces on the link:GUI/Proc[] level need to be fully specified.
* Interfaces on the GUI and Proc level need to be fully specified.
Especially, "Timeline" is now promoted to be a new top-level entity within
the Session
* communication between the !PlayController(s) and the GUI need to be worked
* communication between the PlayController(s) and the GUI need to be worked
out
* the stream type system, which is needed to make this default connection
scheme work, currently is just planned and drafted. Doing a exemplaric
@ -266,5 +273,9 @@ GUI handling could make use of expanded view features like ;
Tree 2008-12-19 22:58:30
Final
~~~~~
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:06:42 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

7
doc/devel/rfc_pending/VersionNumberScheme.txt → doc/devel/rfc/VersionNumberScheme.txt
View file

@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ VersionNumberScheme
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Final_
*Date* _Mi 09 Mär 2011 02:00:41 CET_
*Proposed by* Ichthyostega <prg@ichthyostega.de>
-------------------------------------
@ -152,6 +152,11 @@ Comments
--------
//comments: append below
.State -> Final
considered common practice
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:46:07 CEST Christian Thaeter <ct@pipapo.org>
//endof_comments:

7
doc/devel/rfc_dropped/index.txt
View file

@ -9,10 +9,3 @@ Design Proposals not accepted
The RfC entries listed here where discussed, but then concluded not to be applicable
for some reason. Either the discussion turned up a completely different solution, or
maybe they got just superseded by changing circumstances.
Besides that, sometimes we find an entry impossible to care for and discuss in detail
currently, because we know to be occupied with other stuff. In that case, we put that
entry ``on hold'' (state _*Parked*_). Currently (as of 2/2011) these entries show
up in this category here too.

10
doc/devel/rfc_pending/ClipCatalogingSystem.txt → doc/devel/rfc_parked/ClipCatalogingSystem.txt
View file

@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Design Process : Clip Cataloging System
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Parked_
*Date* _2008-07-26_
*Proposed by* link:JordanN[]
-------------------------------------
@ -117,4 +117,12 @@ without even having to "drive" the development..
--link:Tree[][[DateTime(2008-08-27T20:38:00NZ)]].
''''
Parked until someone cares
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Decided on Developer meeting
Do 14 Apr 2011 02:52:30 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

1
doc/devel/rfc_parked/DIR_INFO Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1 @@
design proposals which are deferred

11
doc/devel/rfc_pending/DelectusShotEvaluator.txt → doc/devel/rfc_parked/DelectusShotEvaluator.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Parked_
*Date* _2008-09-21_
*Proposed by* link:nasa[]
-------------------------------------
@ -385,4 +385,13 @@ very expensive. I'm a sound guy, so I feel your pain...
- link:NicholasSA[] 2009-01-04
Parked
~~~~~~
Decided on Developer meeting, until someone wants to investigate this further.
Do 14 Apr 2011 02:52:30 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

11
doc/devel/rfc_pending/DesignRenderNodesInterface.txt → doc/devel/rfc_parked/DesignRenderNodesInterface.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Parked_
*Date* _2008-03-06_
*Proposed by* link:Ichthyostega[]
-------------------------------------
@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ the invocation interface
this is intended to be a rather simple "call-style" interface, without much
possibilites to influence the way things are happening. You pull a node and
will find the results in a provided buffer or the cache, but you can't even
change the frame data type type of the result. Besides the node invocation,
change the frame data type type of the result. Besides the node invocation,
functions for collecting statistics will be accessible here too (Probably these
functions will be ''implemented'' in a classic-OO fashion by virtual functions,
but that's another story)
@ -118,4 +118,11 @@ Comments
--------
Parked
~~~~~~
We park this until we have time to revisit the details. It is accepted that we
need to design this interfaces.
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:06:42 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

8
doc/devel/rfc_pending/FeatureBundle_PluggableModules.txt → doc/devel/rfc_parked/FeatureBundle_PluggableModules.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Parked_
*Date* _2008-09-03_
*Proposed by* link:Ichthyostega[]
-------------------------------------
@ -186,4 +186,10 @@ link:Plugin/Interface[] system self-describing this will also be used to
bootstrap a session on itself (by the serializer which is tightly integrated)
-- link:ct[] [[DateTime(2008-09-04T09:28:37Z)]] 2008-09-04 09:28:37
Parked
~~~~~~
Needs to ne reviewed some time later.
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:06:42 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

0
doc/devel/rfc_dropped/GitSubmoduleTransistion.txt → doc/devel/rfc_parked/GitSubmoduleTransistion.txt
View file

10
doc/devel/rfc_pending/NormalizedDeviceCoordinates.txt → doc/devel/rfc_parked/NormalizedDeviceCoordinates.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Parked_
*Date* _2009-01-14_
*Proposed by* link:ct[]
-------------------------------------
@ -101,4 +101,12 @@ framerate" and a fixed resolution in pixels. But we certainly can do better.
-- Ichthyostega 18:09:50
Parked
~~~~~~
deferred for later, generally accepted.
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:06:42 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

13
doc/devel/rfc_pending/RenderOptimizer.txt → doc/devel/rfc_parked/RenderOptimizer.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Parked_
*Date* _2007-06-07_
*Proposed by* link:ct[]
-------------------------------------
@ -86,4 +86,15 @@ The good news is, that:
the matrix can be transformed from e.g. RGB to YUV, so these filters can
always work in both colorspaces directly
Parked
~~~~~~
Generally this is accepted but needs some more polishing when we go over it.
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:06:42 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

0
doc/devel/rfc_dropped/SkillsCollection.txt → doc/devel/rfc_parked/SkillsCollection.txt
View file

0
doc/devel/rfc_dropped/TodoLists.txt → doc/devel/rfc_parked/TodoLists.txt
View file

96
doc/devel/rfc_pending/UseCases.txt → doc/devel/rfc_parked/UseCases.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Parked_
*Date* _2008-10-31_
*Proposed by* link:Ichthyostega[]
-------------------------------------
@ -13,16 +13,16 @@ The only way to defeat "featuritis" is to build upon a coherent design --
+
which in turn relies upon a more or less explicit understanding what the
application should be like, and the way the prospective user is thought to work
with the program. Today, a generally accepted ''method'' for building up such
an understanding is to do a ''use case analysis.'' Such a formal analysis would
with the program. Today, a generally accepted 'method' for building up such
an understanding is to do a *use case analysis*. Such a formal analysis would
require to identify all usage scenarios with the involved actors and parts of
the system, and then to refine them in detail and break them down into distinct
use cases. Here, I'll try a rather informal variant of such an analysis. I'll
restrain myself to describing the most important usage situations.
''please participate in the discussion. It well may be that everything detailed
here is self-evident, but I doubt so. At least the grouping and the omissions
reflect sort-of a focus of the project''
'please participate in the discussion. It well may be that everything detailed
here is self-evident, but I doubt so. At least the grouping and the omissions
kind-of reflect a certain focus of the project'
Describing basic Lumiera usage situations
@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ You build up a simple linear cut sequence. Either by
of) unwanted parts
- playing source media and spilling over (insert, overwrite) some parts into
the final assembly
- dragging over pre-organised clips from clip folders to build up the
- dragging over the pre-organised clips from clip folders to build up the
assembly.
Sound is either used immediately as-is (the soundtrack attached to the media),
@ -71,16 +71,16 @@ Scenario (3) : Augmenting an assembly
Without the intention to rework it from scratch, an already existing simple
assembly is augmented, beautified and polished, maybe to conform with
professional standards. This includes the "rescue" of a somewhat questionable
professional standards. This includes the ``rescue'' of a somewhat questionable
assembly by repairing localized technical problems, but also shortening and
re-arranging, and in extreme cases even changing the narrative structure. A
distinctive property of this usage scenario is that work happens rather in the
context of ''tasks'' (passes) -- not so much isolated operations:
context of 'tasks' (passes) -- not so much isolated operations:
- the task may be to get the rhythm or overall tempo right, and thus you go
over the sequence and do trim, roll, shuffle or slide edits.
- you may want to "fold-out" parts of the sound, thus interweaving o-sound and
music
- you may want to ``fold-out'' parts of the sound, thus interweaving o-sound
and music
- there may be a sound overdubbing and replacing pass
- you may want to walk certain automation curves and adjust levels (sound
volume or tone, fade, brightness/contrast/colour)
@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ context of ''tasks'' (passes) -- not so much isolated operations:
Scenario (4) : Compositional work
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here I define ''compositional work'' as a situation where you deal with
Here I define *compositional work* as a situation where you deal with
multiple more or less independent sequences going on in parallel, similar to a
musical score. Frequently, we encounter compositional parts embedded in a
otherwise linear work, and often those parts evolve when Scenario (3) is driven
@ -102,29 +102,29 @@ to the extreme.
- a movie with a complex narrative structure may induce compositional work on
a very large scale (and existing applications frequently fall short on
supporting such)
- compositing often leads to compositional work. Special FX, masked objects
- _compositing_ often leads to compositional work. Special FX, masked objects
being arranged, artificial elements to be integrated.
- similarly any collage like or heavily layered arrangements lead themselves
- similarly any collage-like or heavily layered arrangements lead themselves
to requiring compositional work.
The common distinctive property of all those situations is: objects are
embedded into a primary context and have to obey the rules of this context, and
at the same time have a close correlation to other objects which are embedded
in a completely different ("orthogonal") context. (To give a catchy example:
in a completely different (``orthogonal'') context. (To give a catchy example:
assume, a CG monster has to be integrated. Besides the masked monster object,
you have several colouring and blurring layers at completely different levels
in the layering order, and at the same time you have correlated sound objects,
which need to be integrated into the general soundscape. And now your primary
which need to be integrated into the general sound-scape. And now your primary
job is to get the movement and timings of the monster right in relation to the
primary timing grid established by the existing edit)
The working style and thus the tool support necessary for compositional work is
completely different to Scenario (3). After an innitial buildup (which often is
completely different to Scenario (3). After an initial build-up (which often is
very systematic), the working profile can be characterized by tweaks to various
parameters to be done in-sync at widely separated sites within the session,
together with repeated cycles of "do it", "assess the result", "undo all and do
some small detail differently". Typically there is the need for much navigation
(contrast this to Scenario (3) where you work in "passes")
together with repeated cycles of ``do it'', ``assess the result'', ``undo all and
do some small detail differently''. Typically there is the need for much navigation
(contrast this to Scenario (3) where you work in _tasks_ or _passes_)
Scenario (5) : Working with Sound
@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ operations:
While clearly some of those tasks are always better done within a dedicated
application, the ability to carry out this work partially within the main
session and even while the basic edit is still in flux -- may open new artistic
possiblilities.
possibilities.
Scenario (6) : Large Projects
@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ Scenario (6) : Large Projects
At first sight, the operations and the work to be done in large projects is the
same as in small ones. But large projects tend to create sort of an additional
"layer" on top of the usage scenarios described thus far, which will "kick in"
``layer'' on top of the usage scenarios described thus far, which will ``kick in''
at various places.
- work may be divided upon several editors, working on separate parts
@ -169,8 +169,9 @@ at various places.
a certain transition (template), the way fade-outs are done, a certain
colour profile. Possibly, this stuff needs to be adjusted all over the
project.
- there will be a general (large scale) timing grid and probably there is the
need to navigate to the different parts of the whole project.
- there will be a general (large scale) timing grid with distinct ``check points''
and probably there is the need to navigate to the different parts of the
whole project.
- there may be the necessity to build several versions of the same project in
parallel (e.g. a short version and a extended director's cut)
- you may have to care for such nasty and tedious things as keeping sub-titles
@ -187,7 +188,7 @@ Several people work on a project.
- A longer sequence might be split up into parts, each one edited by another
person. The parts will be collected and assembled by the chief editor. Edits
to the parts will still be possible, but a system of permissions allows to
lock down access to the material.
lock down access to parts of the edit, so to prevent unexpected interferences.
- Arrangements based on the same resources can be branched, tagged and merged.
- Edits are logged with usernames
- Markers can be shown/hidden on a per creator base.
@ -201,12 +202,12 @@ Several people work on a project.
Scenario (8) : Script driven
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The application is started ''headless'' (without GUI) and controlled via an
The application is started ``headless'' (without GUI) and controlled via an
API. Either an existing session is loaded, or a new session is created and
populated. Then, some operations have to be done in a systematic manner,
requiring a way to address parts of the session both unambiguously and in a way
easy to access and control from a programming environment (you can't just
''see'' the right clip, it needs to be tagged). Finally, there might be an
``see'' the right clip, it needs to be tagged). Finally, there might be an
export or render step. A variation of this scenario is the automatic extraction
of some informations from an existing project.
@ -218,26 +219,26 @@ Discussion
* describing such scenarios, even if hypothetical, create an anchor or point of
referral for feature/GUI design work to be done in detail
* relating features to working situations helps to see what is really important
and what is rather of technical merrit
and what is rather of technical merit
* compiling and discussing this list helps shaping the character of the
application as a whole
* the above compilation relates individual features to a general production
process.
* the goal of this compilation is to be ''fairly complete''
* the goal of this compilation is to be _fairly complete_
.Cons
* any of those descriptions is artificial
* sometimes it is better to develop an application technology driven,
especially when it is technologically challenging to get it to work properly.
* having such a large-scale vision may frighten people away which otherwise
* having such a large-scale vision may freak away people which otherwise
might jump in and implement some crazy but valuable new feature
* the listed usage scenarios intend to be ''fairly complete,'' which can be a
* the listed usage scenarios intend to be _fairly complete_, which can be a
limitation or even self-deception. Better have an open ended list.
* the above compilation seems quite conventional and explicitly leaves out some
scenarios
- networked, distributed scenarios, compound applications
- television, life video, !VeeJay-ing
- television, life video, VeeJay-ing
- cartoons, animations, game design
@ -247,11 +248,11 @@ Discussion
* just start out with one scenario directly at hand (e.g. the simple assembly)
and not worrying about the rest
* rather then defining those scenarios (which are necessarily hypothetical),
rather stick to the operation level. E.g. a use case would be rather "trim a
clip"
rather stick to the operation level. E.g. a use case would be rather
on the level of ``triming a clip''
* doing a complete state-of-the art UML use case analysis.
* after having created the foundation, rather stick to an XP approach, i.e.
implement, integrate and release small "usage stories"
implement, integrate and release small ``usage stories''
@ -281,14 +282,29 @@ circumstances of production change quite dramatically.
Comments
--------
//comments: append below
Template e.g. for regular TV series
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.Template e.g. for regular TV series
Constraints to fit all contents within fixed timeline, cover topic, select
collage of iconic scenes from archived and collected footage. Update intro and
credit roll for each episode. Add in stopmotion, and 3D model animations with
vocal commentaries. Gather together separate items from "outworkers". Tree
(@)SIG(@)
vocal commentaries. Gather together separate items from "outworkers".
Tree:: '2008-12-27 08:36:36'
//endof_comments:
Parked
~~~~~~
We have to revisit this, possibly someone (or a group) who wants to work on
the workflow. For now its parked until revisited.
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:06:42 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

19
doc/devel/rfc_parked/index.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
Parked Design Proposals
=======================
//Menu: label parked
//Menu: sort children
-> read link:../rfc.html[more about Lumiera RfC] and the Design Process
The RfC entries listed here where proposed but not finally decided or agreed on;
moreover parked RfC's are put here until someone has time to review and improve
them further towards an final decision.
Labelling a RfC as _parked_ doesn't entail any pre-judgment -- it just might be
beyond our current working focus, or we're lacking the resources to care for this
topic right now.

57
doc/devel/rfc_pending/EngineInterfaceOverview.txt
View file

@ -1,6 +1,12 @@
Engine Interface Overview
=========================
:Date: 2010
// please don't remove the //word: comments
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*State* _Draft_
*Date* _2010-04-16_
*Proposed by* link:Ichthyostega[]
-------------------------------------
@ -8,11 +14,14 @@
Overview Engine Interface(s)
----------------------------
********************************************************************************
At the Engine Interfaces, Lumiera's Backend and Session get connected and work
together to produce rendered output. This design proposal intends to give an
overview of the connection points and facilities involved, to define some terms
and concepts and to provide a foundation for discussion and working out the
APIs in detail.
********************************************************************************
@ -26,8 +35,7 @@ Participants
*Scheduler*:: cares for calculations actually to happen, in the right order
and just in time, if at all
*Node*:: abstraction of an processing unit, supports planning by the
dispatcher, +
allows to pull data, thereby driving the actual calculation.
dispatcher, allows to pull data, thereby driving the actual calculation.
Render Process
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@ -62,7 +70,7 @@ identifier and _channel selector_.
timings::
a definition to translate global model time units in real clock time,
including _alignment_ to an external time grid.
including _alignment_ to an external _time grid_.
model port::
a point in the (high level) model where output can be produced. +
@ -166,7 +174,7 @@ prerequisites)
Node Invocation API
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As nodes are stateless, they need to be embedded into an invocation context in
order to be of any use. + The node invocation has two distinct stages and thus
order to be of any use. The node invocation has two distinct stages and thus
the invocation API can be partitioned in two groups
Planning
@ -175,8 +183,8 @@ During the planning phase, the dispatcher retrieves various informations
necessary to _schedule_ the following pull call. These informations include
* reproducible invocation identifier, usable to label frames for caching
* opaque source identifier (owned by the backed) when this node represents a
source
* opaque source identifier (owned by the backed) in case this node
represents a source
* prerequisite nodes
* index (channel) of the prerequisite's output to be fed as input buffer(s)
* number and size of the output buffers required
@ -201,11 +209,13 @@ Node pull
Tasks
~~~~~
* find out if we need to support variable framerate
* find out about the exact handling of multichannel data streams
* design a buffer descriptor
* design a buffer designation scheme
* expand on the node identification scheme
* clarify how control data frames can be addressed
([green]#-> yes, implementation deferred#)
* find out about the exact handling of multichannel data streams ([green]#✔ done#)
* design and prototypical implementation of frame quantisation ([green]#✔ done#)
* design a buffer descriptor [red]#TODO#
* design a buffer designation scheme [red]#TODO#
* expand on the node identification scheme [red]#TODO#
* clarify how control data frames can be addressed [red]#TODO#
Discussion
@ -229,17 +239,28 @@ Rationale
//Conclusion
//----------
//conclusion: When approbate (this proposal becomes a Final)
// write some conclusions about its process:
Comments
--------
//comments: append below
////////////////////
.State -> Draft
Requirements and details of the design are sufficiently clear meanwhile.
Ther seems to be not much room for alternative approaches, given our
general planning for the application
Conclusion
~~~~~~~~~~
* *accepted* / *dropped* by MMMMMM.YYYY developer meeting.
////////////////////
Mi 11 Mai 2011 19:27:12 CEST Ichthyostega <prg@ichthyostega.de>
//endof_comments:
''''
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

234
doc/devel/rfc_pending/EngineInterfaceSpec.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
Engine Interface Spec
=====================
// please don't remove the //word: comments
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*Date* _Mi 11 Mai 2011 17:53:16 CEST_
*Proposed by* Ichthyostega <prg@ichthyostega.de>
-------------------------------------
[abstract]
********************************************************************************
The main service of the Renderengine is to deliver a stream of calculations
bound by timing constraints. The parameters of this delivery can be reconfigured
********************************************************************************
Try to start the integration and overall design of the Lumiera Render Engine.
Point of reference is the functionality other parts of the application are relying on.
Description
-----------
//description: add a detailed description:
The Engine is driven by the Player subsystem and draws on the low-level Model
(Render nodes network) for all local parameters and control data. The goal is
to deliver all the typical playback and rendering operations commonly found
in NLE applications (functional requirements). Moreover, this functionality
shall be delivered in a robust and reliable fashion, while making optimal
use of the available I/O bandwidth and computation power (non-functional
requirements).
Requirements Specification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.functional
- simple calculation stream
- with or without defined end point
- deliver to fixed output buffer(s) with high timing precision
- ability to deliver individual data chunks (e.g. single frames)
- ``free wheeling'' operation for maximum calculation throughput
- throttled operation using idle calculation or bandwidth resources
- streams with regular stepping and arbitrary block sizes
- looping, seamless chaining of calculation streams with ongoing timing
- ability to pause and to change / combine any of the above any time
- ability to abort or change, providing reliable feedback on completion
- ability to relocate (shift in time) parts of an ongoing calculation stream
- support for chase-and-lock synchronisation
.non-functional
- protection against overload and deadlocks
- gracious degradation in case of problems
- maintain a configurable quality-of-service level
- utilise precisely the resources actually available
Functionality description in detail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-> see the link:EngineInterfaceOverview.html[Engine/Interface overview] for
a description of the involved entities and for definitions for common terms.
Definitions
^^^^^^^^^^^
Calculation Stream::
A series of similar but parametrised calculations,
bound to deliver results in sequence and in accordance to timing constraints
Timed Delivery::
Calculation result data has to be delivered within a fixed time interval
immediately preceding the delivery deadline, so it can be consumed by
an (possibly external) output process without the need for further buffering
Output Slot::
An abstracted facility receiving calculated data; including a scheme
to organise the output buffers, which get handed over to an independent
thread running in parallel, or maybe even to an external process
Operation description
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When *creating a calculation stream*, the _exit node_ and an already opened
_output slot_ are provided, plus the _timing parameters_ (frame duration,
stepping interval length, optional start and/or endtime)
A *free wheeling calculation stream* is created in a similar fashion, just
without timing constraints on the output delivery; i.e. just the output slot
is parametrised differently. This invocation is used to create a ``mixdown''
or ``final render'' to be saved into an output file.
A *background rendering mandate* is created analogous, but _without_ providing
an output slot. Rather, it is expected that the engine will cache the generated
data internally.
When calculation stream definitions are *chained*, the follow-up calculation
stream is expected to be delivered seamlessly after the preceding stream,
without interrupting the output timings.
*Looping* is a special kind of chained calculations, where the same segment
is delivered continuously. But note, the loop boundaries are not necessarily
aligned with the frame spacing or the output timing requirements.
For supporting *chase-and-lock*, the engine needs a mechanism to follow an
externally provided synchronisation goal, _without_ altering the output
delivery timings. Obviously, we need to build in a strategy for handling
this problem (because the solution is bound to be different for different
kinds of media).
The engine can expect the output slot to support *de-clicking* or *flicker
protection* -- yet the engine needs to signal precisely when this is necessary
Quality of service
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Engine is expected to provide different quality-of-service classes,
which are requested as part of the definition parameters for a calculation stream.
- 'SYNC_PRIORITY' means to keep up to the delivery requirements,
even if this means failing to deliver data altogether.
- 'PERFECT_RESULT' means to deliver data perfect up to the definition,
even if this means violating the timing constraints.
- 'COMPROMISE' allows the engine to take some shortcuts in order to
deliver an roughly satisfactory behaviour. Likely there will be
multiple classes of compromise.
The quality of service is partially implemented directly by the engine
and partially passed on as parameter to the individual node invocations.
For example, the engine might decide to switch down to proxy media, while
actually the node network will perform the actual switch and reconfiguration.
The quality of service could be implemented as a strategy, to be consulted at
various decision points. The above cases would then be just some preconfigured
default strategies.
Reconfiguration and abort
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There needs to be a separate ``control channel'' to cause various reconfigurations
during an ongoing calculation process. With the exception of the output slot, all
parameters defining an calculation stream might be changed on-the-fly -- including
the possibility to abort calculation altogether.
The engine is _not required_ to react on such change requests immediately or
synchronously. The goal is rather to integrate such changes seamlessly.
Yet we _require_...
- a guarantee that the change request is observed within some tolerance interval
(i.e. we may block waiting on the change to happen, without risking a deadlock)
- a reliable feedback _after_ the change has happened, by invoking a response signal
(functor/callback provided with the change request)
- a guarantee not to proceed with the original setup after this signalling
(read: after receiving this feedback, resources required only by the initial
setup may be deallocated)
Especially note that the following things might be changed in the middle of an
ongoing calculation:
- timing parameters of the calculation stream (frame durations, stepping interval)
- start and end time
- splitting and chaining of calculation streams (e.g introducing jumps)
- adjust the looping boundaries
- toggle _paused_ state
- change the exit node to use for pulling
- relocate the nominal time position of parts of the calculation stream;
especially we expect already calculated and cached data to be re-labeled
- invalidate parts of the (nominal) time axis, forcing recalculation
- abort individual calculation streams without interfering with others.
Tasks
~~~~~
// List what needs to be done to implement this Proposal:
* analyse requirements of the player subsystem ([green]#✔ done#)
* determine further informations needed during calculation [,yellow]#WIP#
* find out about timing requirements and constraints in detaill [red]#TODO#
* define the interface functions in detail [red]#TODO#
* prepare a test fixture with mock-up calculations [red]#TODO#
* implement the invocation backbone with stubbed functionality [red]#TODO#
Discussion
~~~~~~~~~~
Pros
^^^^
// add a fact list/enumeration which make this suitable:
// * foo
// * bar ...
Cons
^^^^
// fact list of the known/considered bad implications:
The requirements placed on life changes are quite high
Alternatives
^^^^^^^^^^^^
//alternatives: explain alternatives and tell why they are not viable:
Rationale
---------
//rationale: Give a concise summary why it should be done *this* way:
The expectations for the playback and render functionality of a NLE are
pretty much set. There isn't much room for reducing functionality.
So the goal for this RfC is to precisely define the inevitable
and break it down into tangible functionality on the implementation level.
//Conclusion
//----------
//conclusion: When approbate (this proposal becomes a Final)
// write some conclusions about its process:
Comments
--------
//comments: append below
Discussed in the May developers meeting. Seems to be basically acceptable.
_Cehteh_ proposed some small adjustments:
- making the _QualityOfService_ rather a strategy to be queried
- treating the rescheduling a bit separate from the other changes, because
that is very common and needs to be performant.
- introducing a separate scheduler/queue for time scheduled tasks, like
with rater soft realtime requirements
So 15 Mai 2011 00:55:24 CEST Ichthyostega <prg@ichthyostega.de>
//endof_comments:
''''
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

240
doc/devel/rfc_pending/RefactorLiblumieraOut.txt Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
Refactor Liblumiera Out
=======================
// please don't remove the //word: comments
[grid="all"]
`------------`-----------------------
*State* _Idea_
*Date* _Fr 22 Apr 2011 10:46:50 CEST_
*Proposed by* Christian Thaeter <ct@pipapo.org>
-------------------------------------
[abstract]
********************************************************************************
liblumiera contains alot useful and reuseable code which is already in use by
other projects
********************************************************************************
Description
-----------
//description: add a detailed description:
Over the time we've put some efforts into the liblumiera. I've added
some from my code which predates the lumiera project which I am using
on many other projects. This now caused that I maintain this sources in
different unrelated projects and have to cross merge and update stuff
when I do updates and fixes somewhere. I think its time to factor the
reuseable parts out into a independent library (like glib does for
gtk), in fact I had this plan long ago.
.What parts are eligible for a standalone library
Anything which is something tool alike and useful for other projects and not
tied to Lumiera only. This are the algorithms/datastructures, allocators, tool
macros. Additionally some of the src/common things should be moved into the
library. I give some lists below.
.How to name it
Long time ago my plan was to name it 'ctlib' or 'cehlib' but meanwhile there is
enough code done by others. So I'd propose a more neutral name, still
'lumieralib' or 'lulib' would be approbiate. The only thing we have to account
for is that some parts which are too specific for Lumiera and should not be
integrated into this spinoff need either to stay in a lumiera-internal lib
(src/lib/) as currently or being moved to the respective subsystems using them
(src/backend, src/proc, src/common, ...), so the names should not clash.
.C, C++ ...
For myself I need the C parts, while there is C++ code which interfaces to the
C implementations and also a lot code which does nice C++ things on its own.
This possibly means that we should in fact make 2 packages out of this, one C
and one C++ library (where the C++ part is more than just the wrappers, but
also the tools and tricks which are currently in src/lib/ and reuseable).
.Who maintains it
Despite a spin of I think we don't want to change anything from our current
practice and maintain it by the Lumiera developers. For many parts I feel
responsible for it, but its really a part of the Lumiera codebase, despite
independently useable.
.How to maintain it
We need to decide about build system and documentation system. As build system
we may right start using scons. For documentation the situation is a but
different since some of my code uses pipadoc/asciidoc and other uses doxygen.
.What not to do
Some of the code is currently quite specific to Lumiera while it could be made
more generic. This is *NOT* subject of this RFC we may or may not do such a
refactoring but this RFC and any work resulting from this should only restrict
to simple things like necessary namespace and variable renaming and integration
in the build system.
C Parts
-------
Library
~~~~~~~
What belongs to the library
Containers
^^^^^^^^^^
* cuckoo hashing (cuckoo.c|h)
* linked lists (llist.h slist.h)
* cache lists (mrucache.c|h)
* splay trees (psplay.c|h)
* priority queues (not done yet)
Runtime tools
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* error handling (error.h error.c) used by the other facilities too
* clib convinience wrapers (safeclib.c|h) needs better name, maybe refactor
into new facilities
Multithreading
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* locking, condition variables etc. (condition.c|h (rec)mutex.c|h, rwlock ...)
Memory management
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* Memory pools (mpool.c|h)
* Temporary buffers (tmpbuf.c|h)
Metaprogramming
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* preprecessor tools (ppmpl.h) move common preprocessor macros here
* polymorphic call helper for C (vcall.h)
Interface system and module loader
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
except for some hardcoded references to 'lumiera_org' and '.lum' plugin names
this is quite generic, possibly moving this over could be postponed, but might
eventually be done.
From 'src/common'
------
interface.c interfacedescriptor.h interface.h interfaceproxy.cpp
interfaceregistry.c interfaceregistry.h plugin.c plugin_dynlib.c plugin.h
------
The 'config' system could become a candidate too if it ever gets finished and
proved useful, but for the time being its better kept in Lumiera.
Not Library
~~~~~~~~~~~
Too specific to Lumiera:
-----
luid.c luid.h time.h
-----
C++ Parts
---------
For most of the C++ parts I am not sure, ichthyo should decided upon these
(please edit this here)
Library
~~~~~~~
These look 'generic' or wrap the C parts:
------
singleton-factory.hpp singleton.hpp singleton-policies.hpp
singleton-preconfigure.hpp singleton-ref.hpp singleton-subclass.hpp
sync-classlock.hpp sync.cpp sync.hpp thread-local.hpp
typed-allocation-manager.hpp typed-counter.hpp util.cpp util-foreach.hpp
util.hpp variant.hpp
------
Not Sure
~~~~~~~~
------
access-casted.hpp advice advice.hpp allocation-cluster.cpp
allocation-cluster.hpp bool-checkable.hpp cmdline.cpp cmdline.hpp del-stash.hpp
diagnostic-context.hpp element-tracker.hpp error.hpp (currently too
lumiera specific) exception.cpp (as before) factory.hpp format.hpp
frameid.hpp functor-util.hpp handle.hpp hash-indexed.hpp iter-adapter.hpp
iter-adapter-stl.hpp iter-source.hpp itertools.hpp iter-type-binding.hpp
lifecycle.cpp lifecycleregistry.hpp lumitime-fmt.hpp lumitime.hpp
multifact-arg.hpp multifact.hpp meta/* null-value.hpp observable-list.hpp
opaque-holder.hpp optional-ref.hpp p.hpp query.cpp query.hpp ref-array.hpp
ref-array-impl.hpp result.hpp scoped-holder.hpp scoped-holder-transfer.hpp
scoped-ptrvect.hpp searchpath.cpp searchpath.hpp sub-id.hpp symbol.hpp
symbol-impl.cpp visitor-dispatcher.hpp visitor.hpp visitor-policies.hpp
wrapper.hpp wrapperptr.hpp appstate.cpp appstate.hpp basic-setup.cpp
basic-setup.hpp DIR_INFO external guifacade.cpp instancehandle.hpp option.cpp
option.hpp query subsys.cpp subsys.hpp subsystem-runner.hpp
----
Not Library
~~~~~~~~~~~
------
logging.cpp nobug-init.cpp nobug-init.hpp streamtype.cpp streamtype.hpp test/*
time/* time.cpp tree.hpp
-----
Tasks
~~~~~
// List what needs to be done to implement this Proposal:
// * first step ([green]#✔ done#)
* decide on name, namespaces [,yellow]#WIP#
* create git repository, setup boilerplace (build system, legalese)
[,yellow]#WIP#
* move all code over into the git repos, refactor (namespace renames) ()
[,yellow]#WIP#
* make Lumiera use the new lib [,yellow]#WIP#
Discussion
~~~~~~~~~~
Pros
^^^^
// add a fact list/enumeration which make this suitable:
* I am already reuse much of its code, making it independent makes maintaining
it less burden
Cons
^^^^
// fact list of the known/considered bad implications:
* new packages, new dependencies for Lumiera instead 'batteries included'
Alternatives
^^^^^^^^^^^^
//alternatives: explain alternatives and tell why they are not viable:
Rationale
---------
//rationale: Give a concise summary why it should be done *this* way:
//Conclusion
//----------
//conclusion: When approbate (this proposal becomes a Final)
// write some conclusions about its process:
Comments
--------
//comments: append below
//endof_comments:
''''
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

9
doc/devel/rfc_pending/StreamTypeSystem.txt
View file

@ -231,4 +231,13 @@ frameinfo* get_frame(unsigned num)+ where +struct frameinfo+ (not yet defined)
is something like +{ void* data; size_t size; struct metadata* meta; ...}+
-- link:ct[] 2008-10-06
Needs Work
~~~~~~~~~~
There are a lot details to be worked out for an actual implementation but we
agreed that we want this concept as proposed here.
Do 14 Apr 2011 03:06:42 CEST Christian Thaeter
Back to link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[Lumiera Design Process overview]

2
doc/devel/rfc_pending/index.txt
View file

@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ The RfC entries listed here where proposed but not finally decided or agreed on
but sometimes they are kept _on hold_ -- maybe there is something controversial
or some details need to be investigated further.
* sometimes we just decide to postpone the discussion -> see
link:../rfc_dropped/index.html[dropped and parked entries]
link:../rfc_parked/index.html[parked entries]

4
doc/devel/template/YYYY-MM-DD-developerMeetingSummary.txt
View file

@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ __Participants__
* ichthyo
* ...
_Protocol written by XXXXX_
_Summary written by XXXXX_
Recurring Topics
----------------
Discussion of open http://www.pipapo.org/pipawiki/Lumiera/DesignProcess[design process] drafts.
Discussion of open link:/documentation/devel/rfc.html[design process] drafts.
Prop1

16
doc/index.txt
View file

@ -1,14 +1,14 @@
== Documentation
= Documentation =
This documentation section contains documentation for both users and developers.
=== User
== User ==
The user manual containing the full reference for using Lumiera :
* link:user/manual.html[User Manual] _(planned)_
=== Developer
== Developer ==
Informations about the structure of Lumiera, they give an overview on the main components of the application :
* link:design/index.html[Design Documents]
@ -17,7 +17,11 @@ Programming-oriented details about the functional layers of Lumiera as well as a
* link:technical/index.html[Technical Documents]
=== Presentation documents
Documents that you can use as you wish to present or promote Lumiera :
* link:/media/index.html[Whitepapers and Presentations]
== Media and Presentations ==
This section holds documents and materials used to present and promote Lumiera,
articles, summaries and whitepapers
-> link:/media/index.html[Index]

14
doc/technical/infra/rfcsh.txt
View file

@ -46,12 +46,14 @@ Smart matching
RFC names don't need to be given exactly, they use a globbing pattern.
This is:
- case insensitive
- whitespaces are ignored
- `*` stands for any number of parameters
- `?` is any single character
- when starting with `/` they are matched against the begin of the name
- some regex operators work too
* case insensitive
* whitespaces are ignored
* `*` stands for any number of parameters
* `?` is any single character
* when starting with `/` they are matched against the begin of the name
* some regex operators work too
`find` and `show` can operate on many matches so the given rfc name doesn't
need to be unique. The other commands will complain when the RFC name given
doesn't resolve to one unique RFC.