Yes, I am ready and willing to help out with an OpenSG 2.0.0 release in any way that I can. Is there already a page on the wiki for the final 2.0 roadmap? I see a few pages that are related to that, but I do not know which is the most accurate.
As for merging changes from the fcptr_stable_jun07 branch, I did a lot of that work a few months ago, but there are still many revisions left to merge. Most of them are pending because I figured that they needed review before being accepted into the trunk. I could post my list here (using the Trac links) and/or put the list of pending revisions onto the 2.0 roadmap wiki page. Allen told me that people had reported that some content from the Trac site for an OpenSG 2 tutorial was lost. I didn't realize that so much content had disappeared as a result of the hard drive failure several months back. I can try to do some more recovery work on the recovered sqlite database to see if there is any way to pull out all the documentation that Carsten wrote. -Patrick Allen Bierbaum wrote: > I was talking to Patrick more at lunch about his yesterday and he > sounds very interested in helping out to push the release forward. I > will let him talk to specifics, but he did a lot of the behind the > scenes work of triaging bugs, making task lists, and branch management > for the VR Juggler project so I know he could be very helpful with > this sort of thing on OpenSG if people are interested. > > -Allen > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Allen Bierbaum <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Gerrit Voss <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hi Allen,, >>> >>> sorry for the delay I was slightly distracted by other things. >>> >>> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 08:00 -0600, Allen Bierbaum wrote: >>>> Hello all: >>>> >>>> I am writing to ask what the roadmap to 2.0 release looks like. >>>> >>>> We create a stable branch of OpenSG in June of 2007 to use temporarily >>>> while OpenSG 2.0 was ironed out. This branch has worked *very* well >>>> for us which I think speaks volumes to the OpenSG 2.0 code. >>>> Unfortunately, we planned to use this for 3-4 months, but have been >>>> using it for much longer. We would like to get back to using the head >>>> since it has a number of performance improvements and 1.5 years of >>>> development, but I must make sure we can count on a stable >>>> release/branch for code that we deploy. We can help out with pushing >>>> 2.0 out the door, but I don't know what the current plan is. >>>> >>>> For example: >>>> >>>> - How close are we to 2.0? >>> actually I'm already in the middle of what I thought would go into >>> 2.1, e.g. I'm about to restructure the materials, the way materials >>> are stored, and chunks so that they can change according to the >>> requirements/properties of the current segment of the render traversal. >> That sounds promising. If you are working on 2.1 then 2.0 is probably >> ready for a stable release branch. :) >> >>>> - What features/capabilities are left to implement? >>> The biggest issue I see is documentation. I can walk through 1.x >>> and open tickets for missing pieces. >>> >>>> - What will the release process look like (RC's, betas, etc)? >>> I left that one a little bit to Dirk ;-) (yes, I know it's not nice ;-)) >>> I'm fine to go into release mode and walk thought the track tickets. As >>> we have a tutorial at IEEE VR coming up we have to look into this >>> anyway, so hopefully we at least a beta out of it ;-) >> My suggestion would be that we create a 2.0 release branch targetting >> an IEEE VR release. If that existing, I think we could move our >> development over to it and help out with stress testing the system. >> Then everyone could work through the ticket backlog and make sure >> fixes, documentation etc are ready. That said, I would not let >> documentation be the hold up. I know we need it, but we all need >> working code even more. >> >> We have some engineers here that would be willing to contribute (and >> if needed help coordinate) this process. Just let me know what you >> need. >> >>> I'm not sure how much would we have to merge back from your branch, >>> IIRC Carsten looked into a some time ago. >> I was talking to Aron and Patrick about this yesterday. Once we know >> we are going to switch branches, we can go through and merge anything >> we think is needed. We will make the commits self-contained though so >> everyone can review them and we can all back out individual pieces if >> anything is objectionable. >> >> -Allen >> >>> >>> Other opinions ?? >>> >>> >>> kind regards, >>> gerrit -- Patrick L. Hartling Senior Software Engineer, Priority 5 http://www.priority5.com/ The information transmitted in this communication is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains proprietary material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please destroy any copies, contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Opensg-core mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-core
