[Bf-committers] Official announcement on Siggraph?

[Campbell Barton]

My main concern is we release without properly reviewing the operator
and RNA names and methods of access.
This is not just a problem for devs if or extension authors if users
define their own macros.

Existing inconsistencies...
- use_foo, enable_foo
- x_foo, foo_x, foox, xfoo
- How do we manage toggle/get/set's with operators? - currently
inconsistent and undefined.

My preference is to call it a preview release, noting that the API's
are not guaranteed to be stable. (even though many wont change)

Id like to avoid releasing too early and then having to keep users
happy by keeping half baked api's and then have to make improvements
that coexist with existing attributes/operators/functions.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Amos Manneschmidt<amoose136 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  *If* the contents of the beginning of this this
> video<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qauryHKIL_U>(I have not verified
> its contents but I don't see why the author would lie)
> are true, it means if blender reaches 3.0 it is either perfect or its
> development has been discontinued. That said, I believe Ton was talking
> about Siggraph 2.5 specs and release dates, not release numbers.
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Nicholas Bishop
> <nicholasbishop at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Let's not turn this into another bikeshed discussion on the best
>> release number to use, that's not really what Ton's posts were about
>> :)
>>
>> -Nicholas
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Christopher
>> Cherrett<stuff at trackingsolutions.ca> wrote:
>> > I agree on the 3.0 naming jump.
>> >
>> > -------- Original Message  --------
>> > Subject: Re: [Bf-committers] Official announcement on Siggraph?
>> > From: Keir Mierle <mierle at gmail.com>
>> > To: bf-blender developers <bf-committers at blender.org>
>> > Cc: bf-taskforce25 at blender.org
>> > Date: 07/30/09 14:05
>> >> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Shaul Kedem <shaul.kedem at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> +1
>> >>>
>> >>> I think GSR is correct. calling it 2.5 and not 3.0 is a good step + a
>> >>> soft launch with lots of "Beta" and RCs in there will be very good as
>> >>> well,
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> +1 on a longish public beta period to reduce expectations of perfection.
>> >>
>> >> -1 on naming it 2.5.
>> >>
>> >> If any release of Blender (in the past or likely in the future) warrants
>> a
>> >> bump to 3.0, this is it. It's a complete rewrite with some parts ported
>> >> forward. Maybe there should be a 2.99 release that emphasizes beta
>> quality,
>> >> followed by a polished 3.0 release.
>> >>
>> >> Keir
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> So the press release should be in the lines of "a sneak peek", "work
>> >>> in progress preview", "Thought we might ask for tips...", "You can
>> >>> change blender !!", "The best is going to become much better very
>> >>> soon" etc.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:28 PM, GSR<gsr.b3d at infernal-iceberg.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>> ton at blender.org (2009-07-30 at 1333.27 +0200):
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> You know, the press loves good statements, and at the Siggraph
>> exhibit
>> >>>>> we'll have a lot of good attention. We will print nice 'spec sheets'
>> >>>>> for Blender 2.5, and spread an official press release too.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> [...]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> "The first release of the 2.5x series is expected to be available in
>> >>>>> october 2009."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> [...]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Sounds like a plan? Serious objections should be posted quick, we
>> will
>> >>>>> make our sheets and press releases sunday, in New Orleans.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> You should make sure a 2.50 does not end in similar way than KDE 4.0
>> >>>> up to 4.2 (and some would say 4.2 included, as things have not reached
>> >>>> the same level of 3.5.x in some areas).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> To put it in few words: do not give the impression that it is a final
>> >>>> product and will replace previous versions at launch day.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In KDE case, people found out the thing wass not user ready, but was
>> >>>> more "for core developers" even if that big four and zero looked
>> >>>> pretty inviting for everyone, and then "developers in general" and
>> >>>> next "bleeding edge users" to the point that some that want "to get
>> >>>> work done" are staying with KDE 3.5. So they seem to have crawled with
>> >>>> a nasty storm around, with users complaining about bugs and missing
>> >>>> features, instead of getting the same path covered but with better
>> >>>> feelings for everyone.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sorry if that sounds like a party pooper, but learning from others'
>> >>>> experiences is a good thing. There are plenty of other rocks were to
>> >>>> stumble upon.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> GSR
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> >>>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> >>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> >>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> >>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Bf-committers mailing list
>> >> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Bf-committers mailing list
>> > Bf-committers at blender.org
>> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>



-- 
- Campbell