On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 5:24 AM, Gaia <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07.05.2015 19:48, Campbell Barton wrote: >> ---- >> >> While there is a lot of room to extend Blender in different ways, >> please note that obscure functionality, minor changes or >> tweaks for your own specific work-flow may be rejected for inclusion in >> Blender. >> >> While there is great value in developing your own tools, >> some additions don't make sense to include in the blender.org official >> releases. >> >> ---- > > to avoid "obscure" and "don't make sense" what about rewording to: > > While there is a lot of room to extend Blender in different ways, please > note that functionality or tweaks specific for your own workflow, or only > minor changes to existing tools may be rejected for inclusion in Blender.
sounds fine. > While there is great value in developing your own tools, they need to serve > a common use case to get included in the blender.org official releases. This gets awkward... I was trying to avoid getting into details, possibly we cant avoid. The statement above says that the add-ons have to be usable in common cases. However the ability to have add-ons for specialized areas is useful too, where its a *complete* solution, even if its only useful in a niche field. Eg: http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Import-Export/PDB http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Modeling/PrintToolbox > -gaia- > > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- - Campbell _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
