[Bf-committers] Blender developers meeting minutes - February 27, 2016
danmcgrath.ca at gmail.com
Sat Feb 27 23:35:21 CET 2016
Lets not forget the fact that the new manual ultimately is a bunch of plain
html (well, not all, but static at least) files here, no php to crash,
hack, upgrade blah blah. Speed-wise, it's hard to beat the performance for
this type of setup.
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 4:52 PM Thomas Dinges <blender at dingto.org> wrote:
> I agree with Brecht here.
> The entry barrier is a bit technical, agreed. But following the steps on
> how to set it up in the Manual, it was a 5 minute job.
> After that it's not difficult anymore. Visually the new manual is much
> better and well structured, I missed that in the old wiki.
> Best regards,
> Am 27.02.2016 um 22:48 schrieb Brecht Van Lommel:
> > I'm a bit surprised that the manual is coming up as an issue now,
> > there's been a lot of good work done there in the past few months.
> > Even if it's just a few people doing most of the work, in my opinion
> > that's just how most open source projects work. A small dedicated core
> > and then smaller contributions from other. And I see commits from
> > developers like Bastien, Thomas, Dalai, Gaia, Julian, Tamito and
> > contributions from other people too. I don't think the wiki manual was
> > more active?
> > It would be good if the barrier could be lowered, maybe including
> > sphinx python modules in the svn report, a Blender addon to help, I
> > don't know. And certainly I would like all developers to document
> > their work in the manual directly.
> > But in my opinion the result is already much better than what we had
> > in the wiki, without so much wrong information, broken links, warnings
> > about reorganizations that never happen, etc.
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 at gmail.com>
> >> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Sergey Sharybin <sergey.vfx at gmail.com>
> >>> So the actual issue is a lack of coordination work for contributors
> and the
> >>> reason why Manual is still in a reasonable shape is simply only
> because all
> >>> the contributors are scared away and now it's 1.5 people only working
> on it.
> >> The changes that have been made had some review first and corrections
> >> made before being committed.
> >>> f we'll do better coordination work, then Wiki documentation will not
> be a
> >>> disaster at all.
> >> Maybe so, on the other hand the wiki had a long time to prove its self,
> >> and after many years never gave very usable documentation.
> >> I think we just don't have enough people interested and capable to
> >> write (and more importantly maintain) documentation on *any* system.
> >> At this point though the new manual seems to be so unpopular that
> >> (even though I personally find it nice to work with).
> >> This seems strange since for Blender we have 4gig of libs, or
> >> install_deps scripts... boost,
> >> yet for documentation installing a Python package is unacceptable or so.
> >> Almost nobody (close to none of the developers) is really interested
> >> to even bother installing Sphinx and trying to use it.
> >> Can we just give up and declare ourselves incapable of maintaining
> >> documentation entirely?
> >> Move back to the wiki? leave existing docs to bit-rot?
> >> If there is no support for the current system,
> >> I'm not sure if we can expect anything to improve.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
More information about the Bf-committers