|
 |
On 02/11/2018 06:56 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> William F Pokorny <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
>
>>
>> ..for a technique using a not yet adopted parser change which allowed
>> image_maps to be used directly in density {} blocks.
>>
> That is *definitely* an interesting and useful idea (as is your current
> workaround.) Any idea if this image_map thing is going to be included in a newer
> v3.8.x alpha or beta?
>
>
I've no idea. I've since closed the image_map specific pull request. As
a request it was submitted - as suggested - in place of another adding
image_maps and pigment_maps to density { }. I myself use the latter
branch with both enhancements and maintaining the image_map one was
always extra work for me as I 'git re-based' my branches over time.
In general, I've pruned back on the github pull requests I leave sitting
in the queue though I still publish any branches I think reasonably
solid that others building their own POV-Ray might find useful.
Having a lot of pull requests backed up on github itself becomes a
burden to the build test machines, it slows me down on re-basing and it
generates a lot of email noise especially for the most connected
developers.
Aside: I am sometimes frustrated by the pace at which changes are
adopted - while also understanding it. We must have knowledgeable gate
keepers and planners for the code base and they have only so much time.
Christoph, especially, has often enough saved me from my own ignorance
or improved upon an idea and my actual implementation. We need the pinch
point, the bottleneck for change - and to reasonably pace change given
many have development code efforts running alongside the master branch.
Bill P.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
