[Bf-committers] Lack of coordination and communication in Blender development

[Jacob Merrill]

I think step 1 in any proposal for change,

we need a new 'map'/flow diagram of the current system,

any proposed change would be a editied version of this map,

(if we are redesigning anything from a low level)

I have steadily been trying to digest commits, and understand
what everything does, could steps be taken to refactor blender
to make it be more approachable for coders in their blender infancy?

could there be 1 day a month we set aside to helping new developers get
into the flow of commiting?

Thank you all for your hard work,
BPR
On Aug 15, 2015 11:58 AM, "Antony Riakiotakis" <kalast at gmail.com> wrote:

> I will also adopt Martin's position here. The design of the
> interaction model with physics, node driven mesh construction and
> dependency graph is still in it's infancy.
>
> Making generic comments on design of blender is not helpful either.
> Most people on this list have no idea of the context in which you are
> referring (myself included).
> Please be more specific:
> How does blender's design block your progress and what would you like to
> see.
> Is any of the current redesigns of blender internals blocking your
> progress and how?
>
> Only big recent internal redesign I can think of currently is the
> looptriangle refactor, but I don't see how this could be hindering
> physics in any way.
>
> On 15 August 2015 at 20:36, Martijn Berger <martijn.berger at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Kai,
> >
> > As far as I am aware nothing has happened behind closed doors so far.
> > Everyone is trying to give input of wildly varying levels of quality.
> > It would be good if you could put together a (partial) proposal or at
> least
> > a list of things you think you need (based on current limitations?) in
> > order to successfully integrate the fracture modifier.
> >
> > The 2.8 process has only just begun and it seems early to be wanting
> > guarantees to be heard or making assertions that the core team is not
> > listening.
> > I would suggest to any and all people wanting to influence what happens
> > next, make a good (partial) proposal or at least try and describe the
> > current limitation you feel should be addressed.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Kai Kostack <kaikostack at gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello Marc,
> >>
> >> I appreciate your answer but we're aware of what you're explaining. We
> >> have a more fundamental problem.
> >>
> >> Currently there is a redesign of various Blender internals ongoing.
> Design
> >> decisions will be made that are crucial for our modifier to meet all
> >> required coding conventions. Our workarounds have been criticized as
> "bad"
> >> by core developers earlier. However, those hacks have been necessary
> until
> >> now because it couldn't be solved otherwise due to bad Blender design.
> >>
> >> So, now that there is the chance to fix those issues in depth we would
> >> like to monitor that design decision making process and comment early
> on on
> >> it to make sure, they don't oversee some requirements that will be
> >> important for us in the future.
> >>
> >> At the moment it looks like everything important happens behind closed
> >> doors.
> >>
> >> -- Kai
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>