[Bf-committers] Development plan proposal for after the 2.6 series

[Tom M]

Hi all thanks for the comments, I appear to have not communicated
clearly, since there is widespread misunderstanding of what I was
proposing.

Brecht,

> Having all the developers
> working on one area would be already very problematic in one company,
> but distributed over the internet this just would not work in such
> short time frames.

Having all devs work on one area of Blender would definitely be
counter productive (The old cannard about 9 women can't make a baby in
1 month...).  I was thinking more of having the BF coordinate with the
module owner and with patch authors and design proposers.  Doesn't
even need to be a set schedule, but just some lead time (say a month)
of what the BF is planning to focus on would be of tremendous benefit
to patch creators and design proposers.

> Bringing some area to be industry leader in 1 or 2 months is
> absolutely impossible, no matter how many developers work on it.

There are a few areas that could be.  UV tools are extremely close for
instance, we are behind headus but not by a large amount.  The
modeling tools could move to second or third place for SDS modeling
(We can't overtake Modo, but almost certainly Silo), currently we are
in about 6th or further.  Painting tools could move to roughly 4th
place, maybe even 3rd (currently we are around 6th, maybe further).
Sculpt tools could move to a very solid 3rd place - the development
already is enough that I've talked to schools and they are planning to
switch from Zbrush and Mudbox after 2.6.  Retopology we could probably
make a solid play for 3rd, maybe even 2nd.   The other tool areas I'm
not as familiar with how we stack up compared to industry leaders but
I know the gaps are quite a bit larger and more time consuming to
overcome.

> >From the end user point of view this would be a good idea, but it's
> just not realistic in my opinion.

Hopefully my clarification helps to suggest it is more reasonable than
it first appeared.

LetterRip