Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> In article <4173d131@news.povray.org> , Wolfgang Wieser
> <wwi### [at] nospamgmxde>  wrote:
> 
>> I'm glad to read a very reasonable statement from Christoph (and also from
>> Warp) after having read Thorsten's previous message. (Well, I'm not sure
>> how he really meant it but I read it twice and understood it like "we are
>> the cooks and the users should eat what we dish them up - or leave it".)
> 
> That is how it is going to be regarding the *design*, yes.
> 
Okay, so I think we all agree that the _design_ needs to be done by 1 or 2 
(or maybe 3) "engenious persons" who read a list of requirements and 
then come up with the design. 
What I wonder (and really would like to know) is if there actually are 
some people in the POV team (or at least one) who is _continuously_ putting 
a considerable amount of time into that design process. 
Or if everybody is "just dreaming of version 4". 

> I clearly did not talk about anything else in the development process. And
> neither Christoph or Warp said the design process would be different;
> instead they addressed the other parts of the development process. Christoph
> made a very clear that discussions focusing on requirements are going to be
> much more likely being read (and hence considered) if they do not waste time
> and space on talking about a specific design to implement a requirement.
> 
Well, people like me would only suggest things which they are convinced are 
feasible in some way and hence before suggesting some "requirement" I would 
think about "implementation". 

But well, what about setting up some "requirement list" summarizing what one 
should be able to do with the ultimate raytracer? Just as a collection of 
ideas, something to be considered during design but without any guarantee. 

Wolfgang

Post a reply to this message