Hi, Join our irc channel if you want to become a Blender developer and need help understanding parts of code. Goes more efficient.
Log your experience and write a how-I-got-in-blender code doc. -Ton- -------------------------------------------------------- Ton Roosendaal - [email protected] - www.blender.org Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > On 23 Jan, 2016, at 11:03, Owen Hogarth II <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ton two exit functions, what what? What does that have to do with anything? > Are you saying that if you run blender in headless mode without a UI you > have to call one exit function and blender with UI needs a separate exit > function to work properly? If so why is that the case? If not can you > clarify? > > I care about code that runs, something that we be productive and useful. > The most elegantly designed software lives on papers and in academic > professors heads. This is the real world where resources are limited and we > need to get things done. > > Best, > Owen > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Ton Roosendaal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> For those who wonder: >> >> Originally we wanted two exit() calls. The function WM_exit() is for the >> case the UI was running. >> In practice we found that the new WM code still handles the case of >> exiting without UI well. Very nice! >> >> Anyone who can't get over issues like this, is not fit to do any >> development with teams. Blender is a permanent work-in-progress, and just >> as imperfect as any large 20+ year old project where 100s of people >> contributed to. One day someone will rename this exit() call, but >> apparently it wasn't worth the effort yet. >> >> I know there are large quantities of coders who consider "perfect" and >> "beautiful" code to be core essential values, and most of those would never >> be able to work with someone else's code (which is by definition not >> perfect). For such coders plugin architectures might work well. And it's >> another reason why I'm happy we don't have a plugin architecture. >> >> Still not following? >> Just read 'Joel on Software' articles - he can explain it much better than >> I do. >> >> -Ton- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> Ton Roosendaal - [email protected] - www.blender.org >> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute >> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands >> >> >> >>> On 23 Jan, 2016, at 1:31, Campbell Barton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:49 AM, hewi jupama <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> How I love this discussion, you (may) know me. >>>> >>>> Allow me to again write you too many lines for people not to have time >> to read ;) >>>> >>>>>> What part of Blender's C core is neglected exactly? >>>> >>>> How funny you are asking. have you ever looked at the creator.c file, >> the first and most basic file from blender, where it all starts: >>>> >>>> if (G.background) { >>>> /* actually incorrect, but works for now (ton) */ >>>> WM_exit(C); >>>> } >>>> >>>> auch, that is when I say +1 for me. And literally, this is just the >> start! The blender C core code is riddled with these comments and hacks >> and it needs lots and lots of refactoring. If you don't agree or see that, >> mmmh ... ? (don't know how to put that nicely so I wont put anything :) >>>> >>> >>> Right, isn't great - Blender can run headless but still has a >>> window-manager, and its API is still used. >>> On face value its stupid, but also relatively harmless. >>> >>> You can view this as "glass half empty/full" ... you can point to >>> areas which need refactoring, as well as areas that have been >>> refactored recently. >>> >>> Generally areas which are causing real confusion or bugs get priority. >>> It's less likely we go in and make changes when code works well and >>> isn't causing hassles (though refactoring for clarity/correctness >>> happens too). >>> >>>>>> However the purpose of the "Blender" project is to: >>>>>> "build a free and open source complete 3D creation pipeline for >>>>>> artists and small teams." >>>> >>>> You are however absolutely right, the blender foundation wants to >> provide "a tool for ... " It is very important and a real privilege to see >> blender is sticking to these goals. Many projects fail because they divert >> from their initial goal! >>>> >>>> We are discussing the preparation of the blender source code for 2020, >> to make it extendable and easily maintainable. To make it stick to the >> current conventions and guidelines on coding and project management (e.g. >> the ubiquitous right hand rule of XYZ Axis as a main source of sadness >> every time I open blender). This, apparently, has nothing to do with >> current blender vision nor it's goals. I see that now (I was involved very >> closely in the Blender Plugin System (BPS) discussion). >>>> >>>>>> we're not looking to prevent you from trying this. >>>> >>>> But you're not providing much of support either. I was actually >> prohibited by Mr Roosendaal himself to discuss the BPS system on the >> developer irc channel "as it is not a supported project from the blender >> foundation". Well, that makes me very sad. >>>> >>> >>> I don't know the context of your discussion with Ton, but I assume >>> this would be in one of our meetings, since we're quite relaxed about >>> developer topics other times. >>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean by *support* here. >>> >>> Experimental projects from active committers don't receive any special >>> support either. >>> >>> If by *support* you mean getting Blender developers to write code for >>> you to implement a plugin system - then this is a different matter >>> which Ton already covered. >>> >>>>>> But *expecting* this will be accepted into master isn't reasonable >>>> >>>> Exactly wright and 100% correct yet again. During Blender conference >> 2015, the question was raised why blender did not support these ideas or >> projects, Mr Roosendaals' reply was: "if you want that, you will just have >> to create your own community" (I am paraphrasing here, but it is >> essentially what he said) >>>> >>>> So basically, any discussion to refactor blender's source should be >> taken offline or elsewhere online, until the dev's and Ton see the benefit >> and are convinced of the relevance. >>>> >>> >>> No - we can discuss refactoring of course, >>> but the purpose of refactoring matters when it comes to following >>> through and making the changes. >>> >>> If you're asking active developers to spend time on refactoring for >>> the primary purpose of preparing for a project which isn't likely to >>> be accepted in master. >>> This is quite different from the refactoring we already do (though >>> there would be some overlap). >>> >>>>> That's why I sent this email out to the group to see how many people >> would >>>>> be willing to support me while I did this but the response seems less >> than >>>>> luke warm, although I might be totally wrong. >>>> >>>> I had this idea already somewhere Dec 2013. My idea was to create a >> BUI (blender user interface) and extend that using a plugin system. >>>> >>>> >> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev:Ref/Proposals/UI/BUI_BlenderUserInterface >>>> >>>> >> http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?319727-BUI-BlenderUserInterface&p=2528068&viewfull=1#post2528068 >>>> >>>> My intention to achieve this is still not just luke warm but boiling >> hot. Despite all the ice cubes that were thrown in my path. I have source >> code ready to be reviewed. I just need a place to drop it and we can start >> developing. >>>> >>> >>> Hosting your own projects has never been easier. >>> >>> Why didn't you use one of the many options already available? >>> >>>> If you look through the spaghetti source code and all it's circular >> dependencies, you will find the source is not that hard at all. It of >> course needs time and a good initial set-up. >>>> >>>> throw me a private line "[email protected]" to discuss future evolution >> of this idea. Discussing it here will only cool you down. >>>> >>>> KR, hewi >>>> >>>> ps: Again i have though hard and long and over and over and doubted and >> re-read and re-phrased before I pushed the send button. But, freedom of >> speech in mind, I finally did. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
