[Insight-developers] N4 in ITK

[Hans Johnson]

Nick,

I'd support putting the general ITK process objects that have wider usage
into ITK, and putting the application that is used into Slicer3.  Let the
ITK community maintain the core algorithmic pieces, and the Slicer community
maintain the end user application interfaces.

Hans

-- 
Hans J. Johnson, Ph.D.
Hans-johnson at uiowa.edu

278 GH
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52241
(319) 353 8587


> From: Nicholas Tustison <ntustison at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:40:06 -0500
> To: Kent Williams <norman-k-williams at uiowa.edu>
> Cc: ITK <insight-developers at itk.org>, Luis Ibanez <luis.ibanez at kitware.com>
> Subject: Re: [Insight-developers] N4 in ITK
> 
> Hi Kent,
> 
> That's what I had figured that you all were heavy users/testers like we are at
> Penn.  In addition, Andriy interfaces with the slicer community regarding N4.
> And as far as I know, nobody has ran into any issues until recently when
> Richard had problems with his set up.  What would be nice (and I say this
> because I'm completely lazy) is to simply pass ownership to the ITK community
> where these issues would be better addressed via the Dashboard versus me
> making changes to N4 through the IJ and hoping that I don't break anybody
> else's set-up with the changes.
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 7, 2010, at 10:20 AM, kent williams wrote:
> 
>> We try and keep in sync in the BRAINS3 project and have a regular dashboard
>> build. We also have several tests we run.
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/7/10 8:13 AM, "Nicholas Tustison" <ntustison at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Luis,
>>> 
>>> Richard Beare ran into a couple issues running N4 recently on a couple of
>>> his
>>> systems which I hadn't encountered.  He worked out a solution which I plan
>>> to
>>> propagate back to the IJ as a revision soon.  However, considering the
>>> number
>>> of people that actually use the code and the fact that addressing these
>>> issues
>>> would be better done in a versioning/review system where I can actually see
>>> the results from these subtle code changes on different systems on the
>>> dashboard, is there a mechanism that would allow for inclusion of new code
>>> into itkv4 even amidst all the *chaos that is the current itkv4 development
>>> process?  However, I certainly don't want to seem like I'm trying to force
>>> in
>>> my own code into the repository.
>>> 
>>> Nick
>>> 
>>> *(I use the term "chaos" only for rhetorical effect and I actually
>>> appreciate
>>> all the work that's been done to make it as smooth as it has been.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>> 
>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>> 
>>> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
>>> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.html
>>> 
>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
>>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>>> 
>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
> 
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
> 
> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.html
> 
> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
> 
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers