[Bf-committers] IRC meeting minutes, feb 29 and march 7
Ton Roosendaal
bf-committers@blender.org
Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:15:19 +0100
Hi all,
-------------Feb 29
1. projects overview
Ton points out the public projects listing has been updated:
http://www.blender.org/docs/projects.html
A couple of comments (more python team members) have been added to it.
Two new projects were added and improved; for Mesh tools and Transform
2. 2.33 projects
- Scons
Michel mentions his todo list, when that's done Scons will offer what
Makefiles has now, plus some more. Jesterking is assisting him on this
now.
Michel will add 'writing docs' to todo list as well!
- Autoconf
A short disccussion went on around the autoconf topic. Some people have
mentioned really missing the feature. We could still potentially
include this in the sources.
Consensus was to 'be firm', and stick to Scons as replacement.
Zr adds that Scons will enable us more things, like integrating python
controlled test suites, rewriting makesdna in python
- MBall + Mesh
Jiri proposes his latest addition, which allows triangles to be
rendered using MetaBall Polygonize as well. Three methods for
integrating this feature in Blender were discussed. One using an Object
pointer in Mesh pointing to the MBall, two using parent/child for it,
the third using the current 'family' naming convention. Mainly for
consistancy reasons Ton cut the knot and decided to use the third
method.
- New scale option
Theeth describes how this works; while scaling vertices, the
displacement of vertices will not be proportional to the
centre-distance, but be constant. That way a sort-of sculpting effect
can be achieved, where the scaling centre only denotes the direction of
displacement, but not influences the amount.
3. bugs in tracker
The last 30 minutes of meeting people were diving in the tracker.
-------------- March 7
1. Typo3
The new CMS system is taking off really nice. As of now (march 13) the
total pages go to 200. Currently these people already have volunteered:
Kent Mein: Python (plugin) section
JesterKing: development section
Ton: releaselogs, BF section
guitarGeek: development pages
_Sysadm: gallery section
Michael Thoenes: education/training section
Bart: overall site admin, did many pages
Goofster, Robertt, Stiv and Michel have accounts for trial too.
Everyone interested to play with this, or to help managing sections or
pages just ask me!
Read here more about this cms system:
http://www.blender3d.org/cms/CMS_Manual.97.0.html
2. Game engine
Jesterking currently works on compiling/testing issues. He communicates
with Kester on merging ODE and Solid further.
Ton agreed to make most of the NaN demos (.blend) online available for
test and as conformance suite. For gamelogic, the secoac suite can be
used:
http://download.blender.org/demo/old_demos/
(The testfiles are collected and uploaded, but to make it public I am
awaiting OK from the artists who made them. Ask me on IRC for a link if
you need them).
3. 2.33 projects shortlist
- New loopselect
http://www.gvc.net/~jmatthews/blender/loopselect/
Access to these tools are getting a bit confusing. A discussion on how
to integrate it best didn't give a quick consensus. Agreed was for
guitarGeek to commit this in bf-blender with his preferred method, and
review it later on.
(B could be area select tools, Shift-B could be Vert-Edge relation
select tools
Agreed however was that this doesnt need a specific designed cursor
type, header-print is sufficient
- New transform
Ton should review Theeths proposal soon!
- DetectiveThorn might pull off adaptive subdivision for displacement
4. 2.33 planning
Aim still is to have this the engine-back release!
For restoration of game engine a couple of tasks are pending:
- compiling Solid for all platforms (Hos will do irix)
- relocate libraries... Solid/qhull should not be in 'extern' but in
'lib' (right?!)
- verify if we have the latest Solid release
The other topic, python 2.3 support, is pending still. Willian, where
art thou!
5. Engine post-2.33 strategy
Ton points again to issue with maintenance and developement strategy
for engine in future. The complexity is huge, and we might not be able
to provide support at level of other Blender features. We could put
this in separate project, with own CVS and release cycles. There a new
team can also redefine functionality and even drop compatibility
completely.
Hos doubts this would be viable strategy, what would users benefit? And
why not just use Tuhopuu for that?
This is something the engine coders have to say something about first.
-Ton-
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Ton Roosendaal Blender Foundation ton@blender.org
http://www.blender.org