I think this plan could work, but only if the BF invested funds in paying relevant developers for the duration of each cycle. I think this is effectively what the open movie projects accomplish, without the requirement that the new features must be tested in production of a short film.
Joe On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Tom M <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to propose that after the 2.6 series completes that we start > scheduling patch review and perhaps have a development focus. > > My thoughts were to have a 1 or 2 month rotating cycle where we focus > on one area of Blender and try and bring that area to be the industry > leader in terms of speed of workflow and capabilities. During that > time period I'd recommend we have a commitment to review all patches > that are relevant for that area - of course coders could review other > patches as well that are relevant to them, but with a schedule outside > coders can have a clear idea of what code base they need to have their > patch current against, and have a clear timeline about when they can > expect their code to be reviewed. Also with a schedule - artists can > have a clear timeframe to submit ideas and proposals and mockups. > > I'd recommend that we order the development similar to a production > pipeline (Ie similar to how Durians development timeline is ordered). > > So roughly > > Modeling Tools > Sculpting Tools > UV Mapping > Painting > Baking of Maps > Rigging and Skinning > Animation > Lighting and Rendering > Compositing > NLE > GE > User Interface > > The python would probably be throughout since it is involved in all of > our tools. > > What are your thoughts? > > LetterRip > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
