[Bf-python] Final Revision

[joeedh]

Hm, after reading the first few lines of your reply I realized that your 
absolutely correct :)

joeedh

Stephen Swaney wrote:

>On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 06:03:18PM -0800, joeedh wrote:
>  
>
>>Stephen Swaney wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>3) You don't need to post patches to both bf-committers and
>>>bf-bpython.  Just bf-python will do nicely.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't really think that this is a good idea, IMHO.  The self-contained 
>>nature of the python dev team has lead to some design conflicts, and as 
>>such I think it would be a good idea if all patches were sent to both lists.
>>
>>Willian, Stephen, what do you think?
>>    
>>
>
>Having written the statement you quote above, I must say
>I agree with Mr. Swaney's short, but brilliantly presented argument!
>
>Somewhat more seriously, it is true that there are bpy design issues
>that are of interest and concern to the bf-committers list readers.
>Our current whipping-boy, the Window module, is an example of this.
>However, bpy methods that simply provide access to the blender
>database do not fall into this category.
>
>In addition, what we are talking about here is a patch that is not
>quite Ready for Prime Time.  We are discussing changes needed for it
>to be accepted into the blender codebase.  That, plus the fact that
>many of the regular blender coders do not understand embedded python
>code, tells me this thread is better left as bpy traffic.
>
>If we were discussing a design issue like how to link and run scripts
>in other spaces like OOPS or the 3d window, or when that work might be
>scheduled, I would agree with you.  Things like that are general
>blender development issues.  Repeated updates to a simple patch are
>just noise on the bf-committers channel, no matter how interesting
>they may be to the bpy team.
>
>  
>