Hi all, Cool suggestions all over; will need some time to study it in detail. :)
Just coincidentally; this month's ACM Communciations has a nice article about technical debt. It also refers to the currently very popular short release cycles; with the evident benefits but also with as danger that it can go out of control with a huge pile of postponed todo items and issues. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_debt The issues on this page sound strikingly familiar ;) -Ton- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ton Roosendaal Blender Foundation [email protected] www.blender.org Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A 1018AD Amsterdam The Netherlands On 18 Jun, 2012, at 3:16, Bassam Kurdali wrote: > absolutely! though I'm not sure still what part is 'big enough' for > 2.7/2.8 - it seems like more nodes is! but maybe dependency graph should > even be a target for 2.6 series. > my observations of 'weaknesses' from experience working on tube and > other projects: > 1- dependency graph > 2- library linking robustness in corner cases, and overrides, and over > simplicity. > 3- speed is always nice (maybe depgraph helps multithreading) > 4*- renderer issues are being fixed by cycles already > 5*- mesh issues are being fixed by bmesh and other work. > 6- nodal everything ;) at least > constraints/modifiers/transforms/relationships. > 7- nodal particles > 8- hair and fur > 9- unified/better physics esp. cloth sim. > 10- art-directable sim/ rigid bodies. > > some of those are probably related to each other. > cheers > B > > On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 01:10 +0100, Gianmichele Mariani wrote: >> Main focus for 2.7/.8 series? A full dependency graph for sure. Possibly >> bring more nodes into the core of blender (particles, rigging, fx) >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Mike Belanger <[email protected] >>> wrote: >> >>> I'm really happy about the last few years of Blender development. But I >>> sort of miss the built-like-a-tank stability of 2.4x series. It'd be nice >>> to focus on stability, bug-fixes for a while. >>> >>> I know that isn't as cool as an open-project though :P >>> >>> Mike >>> On 2012-06-17, at 7:33 PM, Knapp wrote: >>> >>>>> - Ton also invites people to think of post 2.6 projects. A special >>> focus for 2.7x and 2.8x? Suggestion: in all of 2013, BF focus on Blender >>> itself (no open movies!). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Could you enplane this a bit more? >>>> >>>> IMO VERY HO >>>> I would like to see a project that pushes fog, clouds, sea, smoke and >>>> water effects and unifies them. Perhaps a classic Greek / Roman >>>> sailing adventure? >>>> Integration of Particles and Array mods could use some work. >>>> -- >>>> Douglas E Knapp >>>> >>>> Creative Commons Film Group, Helping people make open source movies >>>> with open source software! >>>> http://douglas.bespin.org/CommonsFilmGroup/phpBB3/index.php >>>> >>>> Massage in Gelsenkirchen-Buer: >>>> http://douglas.bespin.org/tcm/ztab1.htm >>>> Please link to me and trade links with me! >>>> >>>> Open Source Sci-Fi mmoRPG Game project. >>>> http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page >>>> http://code.google.com/p/perspectiveproject/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
