+1 for keeping models inside same repository as arches (arch/...) -1 for integrating their rendering in a Makefile process
Nicolas Weeger (Laposte) wrote: > Hum, what about a small 'generated files' text file in directories, then? > That > would list files made from models. Of course this would add many text files > around... > > The drawback of adding models to arch tree is that it will grow up a lot - > Blender files are quite big (min 100k per file). So people will need time to > get'em... Also collect script will report many junk files (scripts we can of > course tweak to ignore those files ^_-) > > Nicolas > This is not an issue. Map files checking out already takes long. Moreover, i see 2 kind of people requiring archetypes 1) People needing them to run server. They can simply use the already compiled arch files 2) People needing to tweak arch and / or pictures. They then probably want to have the models too. I vote for keeping models within same directory as picture. But i opt out for the idea of a Makefile to build them all. Because this would lead to lots of tweak a model make 3dmodels commit and you get a commit of lots of unchanged png. Contrary to generated textfile other places in project, there is no way for CVS i think to notice the png has not changed (no diff in binary files) and so this could lead to overbloating of cvs repository history. Better make a generating script run only on a specific model. Tchize > _______________________________________________ > crossfire mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > > _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
