[Bf-committers] Blender roadmap article on code blog

[Campbell Barton]

>> The timing here is unfortunate too.
>> It's not nice for Daniel Stokes to find out the BGE will be
>> discontinued the day he starts working on GSOC. (BGE Level of Detail
>> and Bug Fixing/Polishing)
>> Bug-fixing a system that gets removed in a year isn't such good use of
>> resources.
>
> I was unaware of this and have to agree, the timing sucks. That said, I'm not sure if it's a great argument for keeping the BGE as it is and integrated as it is. The whole "sunk cost fallacy" comes to mind and, while I don't want to be callous to Daniel Stokes, I can't see that his GSOC project will really change the underlying motivations that prompted this move.

Then it may be a good argument for Daniel to make a start on
interactive-animation tools,

> There are folks on BlenderArtists talking about the large number of patches contributed for BGE that never made trunk and would almost constitute a fork themselves if applied (they're calling it the "HG1 build". This is a symptom of the developer effort allocation problem mentioned earlier and would apply as much to a GSOC project as any other large patch correct?

While this is a valid point, (as far as I know) none of these devs
have stepped up to really supporting the BGE and helping become a
maintainer.
They mostly submit one feature they need for their game, then become
inactive with BGE dev.

... you could argue this is catch22 - if we accepted their patches
they would become more active and submit more fixes.... but I still
think if someone really wanted to become active and take the BGE
forward they could - despite some slow patch review.

> --
> Benjamin Tolputt
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers



-- 
- Campbell