Hello. On 26/02/15 23:08, Daniel Kolesa wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Cedric BAIL <cedric.b...@free.fr> wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Daniel Kolesa <dan...@octaforge.org> >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Cedric BAIL <cedric.b...@free.fr> >> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Tom Hacohen <tom.haco...@samsung.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 25/02/15 14:52, Cedric BAIL wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Tom Hacohen < >> tom.haco...@samsung.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 23/02/15 16:27, Cedric BAIL wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Daniel Kolesa < >> dan...@octaforge.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Daniel Kolesa < >> dan...@octaforge.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Oleksandr Shcherbina < >>>>>>>>>> o.shcherb...@samsung.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Sorry guys, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> capital letters will be changed asap. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also we plan reduce quality of resources. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It example useful for testing, because gathers features >>>> together. >>>>>>>>>>> Can you advice acceptable size for 3d models and images for >>>> textures? >>>>>>>>>> 256x256 for this kind of stuff at most (everything above that is >> an >>>>>>>>>> overkill; i believe in most cases even 128x128 would do). Fix up >>>> the names >>>>>>>>>> and paths (all lowercase, no spaces). Keep all textures with >>>> power-of-two >>>>>>>>>> sizes (32, 64, 128 etc) so that mipmapping behaves correctly (and >>>> so that >>>>>>>>>> the examples work with all versions of opengl and with all >> supported >>>>>>>>>> hardware). As for the models, you can probably dramatically >> reduce >>>>>>>>>> polycount on everything (and scale down the skins). Make sure the >>>> assets >>>>>>>>>> dir stays small, 50MB is really bad. >>>>>>>> I think the requirement on being power-of-two is irrelevant in the >>>>>>>> case of Evas as we should be using Evas_GL_Image which already does >>>>>>>> automatic packing into an atlas with the right size for us >> (Otherwise >>>>>>>> we would have trouble with all the other image we load for >> widgets). >>>>>>>> As for size, I agree 256x256 should be enough for this example and >> I >>>>>>>> should start paying attention to file size... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And yeah, as Tom said, this would best go into a separate >>>> repository. We >>>>>>>>> don't really want this kind of stuff in efl.git. >>>>>>>> This I disagree. I think this is not orthogonal to efl. We are >> pushing >>>>>>>> a 3d and a vector scenegraph in efl to use it for widget and >>>>>>>> application. Showing how to use that infrastructure does make >> sense. >>>>>>>> Same actually goes with exactness data, as we are doing a graphical >>>>>>>> toolkit and we don't have visual test in our make check. It's just >> a >>>>>>>> shame and a bad excuse for not having it. If you really want that >> out >>>>>>>> of the main git, I guess we could use some submodule and force make >>>>>>>> check/examples to pull that part if necessary, but that doesn't >> feel >>>>>>>> reliable at all. >>>>>>> Submodules, as I've suggested a million times before. That's the >> only >>>>>>> sane way of doing it. >>>>>> submodule only bring pain and agony to its users last time I tested >>>>>> them. And the web is still full of complains so nothing did change >>>>>> there, but you are welcome to enlighten me on how great they are. >>>>> submodule are quite easy to use, but yeah, I guess they are a bit >>>>> annoying for noobs. Luckily, we are not going to use them for anything >>>>> that matters for the non technical user, we are only going to use it >> for >>>>> external shit no one uses anyway. >>>> Seriously ? Either you never used submodule and are a complete >>>> ignorant, or you want to inflict pain on other and cripple EFL with >>>> problem. Everyone who used submodule will have lost commit, feel the >>>> pain of managing a branch or rebasing work while working with others. >>>> submodule is a sure recipe for poor quality delivered to user. Just >>>> use google to search about all the bad experience that come out of >>>> submodule (You don't even need to search for bad experience >>>> specifically, just google "git submodule" and you already have on the >>>> first page web page that explain why you should not use them...). >>> I've used submodules successfully for similar purposes. Stop saying >>> bullshit. They work just fine for this kind of stuff - people get >> problems >>> when they use them wrong (for example when subtree should've been used >>> instead); for an optional repo (and examples ARE optional) it's perfectly >>> fine and easy to manage. >> Bullshit is not a valid argument to dismiss the fact that git >> submodule work by using a detached HEAD. That's what create problem >> and that didn't change in the past years as far as I know. How many >> people where active daily on your project where you used them ? How >> many branch did you manage ? The fact it worked for you is not a valid >> argument. Addressing the problem it create, would be. >> > There is no problem, because majority of people are not even interested in > downloading examples (look at how often "make examples" is broken - and > nobody cares until release, when distcheck fails).
Distcheck has nothing whatsoever to do with the examples. No idea why you are mixing up these two targets here. > By using a submodule you > essentially allow people who are not interested in downloading them not to > download them, and those who want them can easily pull them in. They do NOT > belong into the primary repo. As so often we are mixing various things into one argument on this list. Maybe one of the reasons we seldom come to clear decisions here. :) o You and Tom don't want them in I heard no one else complain about it. Personally I like them in tree simply because it makes them easier for developers to find and look at when testing out some new APIs or features. o On the other hand getting 50MB of resources is for just an example if for sure to much. This case is similar to the ephysics demo game which is also not in examples. Normal examples are fine though in my book. o Getting this patch with 50MB resources plus broken names in should have really been caught during the review and pushed back on. o If we look at the recent example why examples (pun intended) have been broken that was the EO change. And clearly Tom is not running make examples because he dislikes this so much. :) o If you really want to move them into a submodule you should start answering Cedric's questions about them and not simply stating its fine and ignoring his technical objections. Personally I also have reservations against submodule. Mostly coming from bad experiences I had with them on a different project some years back. These might all be fixed now but the point is that if you want to introduce something that changes the workflow you have to _sell_ it to the people. regards Stefan Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
