[Bf-funboard] Named layers
antont at kyperjokki.fi
antont at kyperjokki.fi
Sat Oct 13 09:50:02 CEST 2007
On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:00 PM, bf-funboard-request at blender.org wrote:
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> Sorry,about how the messages come out.This is the only way I'm used to
> sending email.
at least for me, in digest mode, this one came allright - just as normal text.
> But, as far as my layer system is concerned.It's already is capable of
> labeling all bone layers and scene layers.
i think everyone wants that somehow.
there are also other features people have made: like yesterday at the
conference we saw in 'plumiblender' the colour symbols for showing on which
layer the active object is, which layers have objects etc. and did some other
patch do that with symbols instead of colours?
> My ultimate goal is to intergrate the render layers UI,get rid of the little
> buttons and be able to dynamically allocate
disclaimer / apologies: i haven't applied your patch to try and see.
i don't know what you mean by integrating the render layers, to the 'working
space visibility layers' or how should those 'little buttons' be called. also
i don't understand why/how you want to get rid of the little buttons, what
would replace them? i am not asking nor even encouraging you respond and
explain here, but basically just echoing and demonstrating the need for what
Stephen already said:
> > 1) having a proposal or design document makes it easier for us to
> > understand what you are doing as opposed to trying to reverse engineer
> > your patch and makes it easier for you to get feedback.
so besides code we need good clear communication, and some sensible way to get
the thing going.
> All of this will take time.My patch is a preliminary start.Just as Blender
> has evolved over time,my layer system will
i agree that things need to start somehow, take a first step, and can then
well evolve further. and i agree with Doug Ollivier that naming is a safe
thing to add.
sending a patch is a good start, for many cases Blender development is now
using branches too - like the new imagebrower stuff was developed in a new
branch, I guess the experience from that has been pretty good? perhaps this
might be good a way for the layer system too. of course that is not needed to
start with and not when going further either, just updating the patch as the
work progresses has worked well in many cases too.
but it would be still good to have a design proposal of the basic ideas that
there then is some at least rough consensus on. especially as you already have
ideas for the next steps, some kind of a roadmap to motivate the design
decisions would be good.
OTOH it may be that your vision of the system is different to how others
wanted, in which case i guess you maintaining a fork is the only choice (not
necessary a disastrous one), but I hope it does not go to that 'cause we all
basically need and want those things.
> I need it personally anyway for work.
So do I, and very many other people, but don't know yet if the way you want it
is the way e.g. i want it, and how it compares to other ways people have
proposed. But I feel this is a key point: people scratching their own itches,
be it in companies where the management decides to hire a coder to solve
something they need, or individual users/developers, is what can drive open
source and hopefully keeps accelerating Blender development efficiently.
There is a session here in Amsterdam at the conference tomorrow on Sunday at
1800 titled "What I would like to see in Blender" -- perhaps this layers
management business can be discussed there too. Perhaps someone at the conf
has applied your patch so could show it .. I don't have a build environment
set up on this little laptop that am travelling with, I guess I should get the
time to fix that..
More information about the Bf-funboard