[Bf-committers] Blender developers meeting notes, 9 April 2016

[Ton Roosendaal]

Hi,

Before we get upset (or happy) about the removing bizz, let's be very clear.

There are two types of "remove". One is a temporary remove (for refactor, recode or redesign), and the other is a permanent removal.

The first category will be quite easy to agree on. For the second category we can do a long review and insist on a wide consensus by the teams.

The "remove" sequencer or game engine thefore should be read as "recode".

-Ton-

--------------------------------------------------------
Ton Roosendaal  -  ton at blender.org   -   www.blender.org
Chairman Blender Foundation, Producer Blender Institute/Studio
Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands

> On 09 Apr 2016, at 22:23, Aaron Carlisle <carlisle.b3d at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I think that blender internal should be removed, permanently.
> And instead be replaced by the improved view port.
> 
> Just my two cents :)
> 
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Ton Roosendaal <ton at blender.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> Here are the notes from today's LA 10 AM timezone meeting, #blendercoders
>> irc.freenode.
>> 
>> 1) Blender 2.77a release
>> 
>> - The release went out last week, all is fine with it. No showstoppers in
>> bug tracker.
>> 
>> 2) Blender 2.78 (or 2.8)
>> 
>> - There are a couple of ongoing projects we can do a new release for. No
>> planning yet.
>>  (VR rendering, Headmounted disply support, Alembic, etc)
>> 
>> - Main meeting topic was brought in by Thomas Dinges: where are the plans
>> for 2.8!?
>> Meeting agreed on not planning any new release before we (also) have a
>> solid planning for 2.8.
>> 
>> - A good way to get this started is to open a (first) 2.8 branch with all
>> of the code we
>> want to refactor or redesign removed. That could mean: no viewport code,
>> no particles, no
>> game engine, no sequencer, etc. It's OK if the branch is dysfunctional for
>> a while.
>> 
>> Developers who then need to do even more radical work can fork this branch
>> and work on
>> their modules.
>> 
>> We did something similar back then for 2.5. In the end we just put back a
>> lot of old code
>> still - for the sake of having things work - but we could also fix a lot
>> of design flaws.
>> 
>> Next meeting (18 April) we aim at having a 2.8 branch proposal for the
>> meeting to agree on.
>> 
>> 3) Other projects
>> 
>> - Kevin Dietrich has an Alembic patch ready for review:
>> https://developer.blender.org/T48075
>> 
>> - Mai Lavelle submitted Cycles microdisplacement code. Brecht van Lommel
>> reviews.
>> https://github.com/maiself/blender/tree/microdisp
>> 
>> -Ton-
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> Ton Roosendaal  -  ton at blender.org   -   www.blender.org
>> Chairman Blender Foundation - Producer Blender Institute
>> Entrepotdok 57A  -  1018AD Amsterdam  -  The Netherlands
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> Bf-committers at blender.org
>> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers