[Bf-committers] "Security" gets in the way

Benjamin Tolputt btolputt at internode.on.net
Fri Apr 30 01:41:35 CEST 2010


Raul Fernandez Hernandez wrote:
>  Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of discrimination , I think the
> fact that english is not my way of thinking could lead to this. I was
> speaking for myself , splitting in pro-security and the rest is very
> natural when a discussion arise, is nothing bad,  and when I was
> referring to "the rest of us could continue improving blender" I didn't
> mean that working in security was not improving blender, I mean: "the
> rest of us could continue working in their projects in blender".
>   

OK, I apologise for misinterpreting you. The lack of clarity as to what
will or will not be accepted by core development perhaps makes me read
too much into the posts by main developers :)

>   I think a working patch or prototype is way better than a long
> discussion that sometimes get out of its path, nothing more.
>   

The issue I have is that I (or someone else) could put ALOT of work into
fixing this without it being accepted into core because they are not
interested in what it takes. Security is not like a new operator or
constraint. Like the UI refactor - it will affect almost everything in
Blender in some way. The amount of work needed even for a basic
prototype is substantial.

To use a recent example, how do you think a developer would have felt if
they put together the Blender 2.5 UI refactor prototype if they knew Ton
was against it? I know I wouldn't have bothered. Not because I don't
think it is a great feature, but by the very fact it touches almost
everything (like security will); it would be impossible to keep up with
Blender development through patching a local installation.


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list