Hi, Before we get upset (or happy) about the removing bizz, let's be very clear.
There are two types of "remove". One is a temporary remove (for refactor, recode or redesign), and the other is a permanent removal. The first category will be quite easy to agree on. For the second category we can do a long review and insist on a wide consensus by the teams. The "remove" sequencer or game engine thefore should be read as "recode". -Ton- -------------------------------------------------------- Ton Roosendaal - [email protected] - www.blender.org Chairman Blender Foundation, Producer Blender Institute/Studio Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands > On 09 Apr 2016, at 22:23, Aaron Carlisle <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think that blender internal should be removed, permanently. > And instead be replaced by the improved view port. > > Just my two cents :) > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Ton Roosendaal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Here are the notes from today's LA 10 AM timezone meeting, #blendercoders >> irc.freenode. >> >> 1) Blender 2.77a release >> >> - The release went out last week, all is fine with it. No showstoppers in >> bug tracker. >> >> 2) Blender 2.78 (or 2.8) >> >> - There are a couple of ongoing projects we can do a new release for. No >> planning yet. >> (VR rendering, Headmounted disply support, Alembic, etc) >> >> - Main meeting topic was brought in by Thomas Dinges: where are the plans >> for 2.8!? >> Meeting agreed on not planning any new release before we (also) have a >> solid planning for 2.8. >> >> - A good way to get this started is to open a (first) 2.8 branch with all >> of the code we >> want to refactor or redesign removed. That could mean: no viewport code, >> no particles, no >> game engine, no sequencer, etc. It's OK if the branch is dysfunctional for >> a while. >> >> Developers who then need to do even more radical work can fork this branch >> and work on >> their modules. >> >> We did something similar back then for 2.5. In the end we just put back a >> lot of old code >> still - for the sake of having things work - but we could also fix a lot >> of design flaws. >> >> Next meeting (18 April) we aim at having a 2.8 branch proposal for the >> meeting to agree on. >> >> 3) Other projects >> >> - Kevin Dietrich has an Alembic patch ready for review: >> https://developer.blender.org/T48075 >> >> - Mai Lavelle submitted Cycles microdisplacement code. Brecht van Lommel >> reviews. >> https://github.com/maiself/blender/tree/microdisp >> >> -Ton- >> >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> Ton Roosendaal - [email protected] - www.blender.org >> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute >> Entrepotdok 57A - 1018AD Amsterdam - The Netherlands >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bf-committers mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers >> > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
