Stephen nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/09/06 04:12:
> Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>> Arne Kleinophorst wrote:
>>>> Maybe some people will consider this OT, but I think it fits better here
>>>> then anywhere else.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any progress concerning Moray? Is it RIP or WIP?
>>> Dead, I think yes. Officially dead? ???
>>>
>>> Entire ray-tracers have been written since the release of POV 3.6.
>>>
>>> We've been talking about POV 4.0 since 1999!
>> I wasn't aware that frequency of releases had become a software quality metric.
> 
> Well you live and learn :-)
> In this ipod age if you don’t have “change” there are a lot of consultants
> out of a job.
> More seriously, it is a sign of the times.
> 
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> 
On the other hand, I have some programms that date back from 1995 and even 
earlier that I still regularly use.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
I can read your mind, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> 
> I wasn't aware that frequency of releases had become a software quality metric.
> 

It has not for me. I believe POV-Ray to be very high quality, which is 
why I'm still here. I believe this even more after having recently been 
forced[1] to use another renderer to get a descent image of a model I 
had created.

I would describe POV-Ray as, "The DOCUMENTED free renderer without the 
overly pedantic text interface."

However, the slow development of POV-Ray leaves me concerned that this 
quality program (or at least, a good deal of the community around it) 
may one day disappear. I love POV-Ray, but I feel like an IE user - the 
problems the program does have[2] are GOING to be there for the 
foreseeable future. Meanwhile, others are steadily marching towards 
greater speed, integration with modelers, and other things about which I 
don't care a lot, but others do.

  -Shay

[1] By my own mistake or a bug in POV-Ray. I'm not 100% certain yet, but 
I'm leaning towards bug. Pixie rendered the model without problems.

[2] ie "Pass by reference" bug.

Post a reply to this message

"Shay" <Sha### [at] cccc> wrote in message news:46e01141$1@news.povray.org...
> [1] By my own mistake or a bug in POV-Ray. I'm not 100% certain yet, but 
> I'm leaning towards bug. Pixie rendered the model without problems.
>
> [2] ie "Pass by reference" bug.

that's a bug? I thought it was a feature.  I recently discovered that 
macro-arguments are passed by reference, and a whole new world of 
possibilities unveiled itself!

(I have to stop using difficult words however, 'cause I don't know how to 
spell "unveiled" :) and I'm not even sure it is a word)

cu!
-- 
#macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*C/50#end#macro _(b,e,k,l)#local C=0;#while(C<50)
sphere{G(b,e)+3*z.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1;
#end#end _(y-x,y,x,x+y)_(y,-x-y,x+y,y)_(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)_(-y,y,y+z,x+y)
_(0x+y.5+y/2x)_(0x-y.5+y/2x)            // ZK http://www.povplace.com

Post a reply to this message

Zeger Knaepen wrote:
>>
>> [2] ie "Pass by reference" bug.
> 
> that's a bug? I thought it was a feature.

Try this code:

#macro Pass_By_Reference ( VARIABLE )
   #local VARIABLE = 9;
   #local Something = str(10,0,0);
#end

#local Counter = 0;
#while ( Counter < 100000 )
   #local Var = 12;
   Pass_By_Reference ( Var )
   #if ( Var = 9 )
     // do nothing
     // worked as intended
   #else
     #debug "didn't work this time\n"
   #end
     #local Counter = Counter + 1;
#end

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:
> However, the slow development of POV-Ray leaves me concerned that this 
> quality program (or at least, a good deal of the community around it) 
> may one day disappear. I love POV-Ray, but I feel like an IE user - the 

I share some frustration; the original developers of POV (i.e. ones who
were around in the 1.0 days) have mostly gotten somewhat older, married,
kids, mortgage, in other words 'real life'. So one by one they've become
inactive; I'm the only one left now.

In the process, we haven't picked up as many new developers as those who
have left. And our development model simply does not fit in with the way
things are done in most open software projects these days, which doesn't help.

Rather than change development model mid-stream, we have decided to make
the switch when we go to 4.0. That will have a more typical 'open' plan
with a public code repository and so forth (the exact details have not been
decided, but it will be along those lines).

As for the delay for 4.0, the main issue has really been finding a suitable
license. Up until recently there was no OSI-approved license that we found
to be suitable, and we were very disinclined to attempt to come up with a
new one and submit that for approval. So we decided to wait for the outcome
of the GPL3 process.

Now that process has been completed, as a group we feel the GPL3 is the way
to go and have informally decided that 4.0 will be GPL3-licensed. [While at
this point the GPL3 is not (as far as I know) OSI-approved, we expect that
this will occur in due course, and in any event, the GPL has enough
standing to hold its own.]

The process we intend to follow (note this is not set in stone) is that
once 3.7 is stable enough for an RC, we will make a public release of the
3.7 source. Some time after that (once the source is stable enough) we will
release a modified version of the 3.7 source labeled 4.0, with all portions
of the code that we cannot re-license stubbed out or otherwise removed.

Basically this means gutting much of the functionality. However the basic
infrastructure should survive since it has been extensively re-written for
3.7, and the new code can be re-licensed under the GPL3. This tree will at
least be able to compile and render a sphere-on-plane image, forming a
working framework for the following work.

We will then depend on public participation (along with our own efforts) to
re-implement the removed code using the 3.7 source as a reference.
Basically any code that we cannot bring across has to be re-written and
submitted under the GPL3 and later by the developer concerned.

While this is a big job, having the original source as a reference reduces
the difficulty. While it wouldn't be possible to copy the code, new code
with the same functionality can be written and, moreover, compared with the
original by feeding the same data through it, thus easing testing and
integration.

Of course we would also want to take the opportunity to clean up some older
parts of the code so I am not claiming it will be a 1:1 re-creation of 3.7;
I would expect significant changes in the parser for example, and there may
even be a version of the renderer that can be complied to a library with an
ABI and no parser (if we don't do it, someone else surely will).

Overall you may now have some better idea of what is in our minds and
the process we intend to follow. The matter is we simply have to get the
time to polish off 3.7 and do the requisite modifications to the tree to
make it ready for the above.

We are as always interested in hearing from anyone with reasonable coding
skills who can assist, not only with the future 4.0 work but also with
finishing 3.7.

regards,

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

"Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote:
> (I have to stop using difficult words however, 'cause I don't know how to
> spell "unveiled" :) and I'm not even sure it is a word)

Well, I reckon you do, and it is! :)

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> Shay wrote:
> > However, the slow development of POV-Ray leaves me concerned that this
> > quality program (or at least, a good deal of the community around it)
> > may one day disappear.

I feel that too:  Pixie is just like all renderers out there, obsessed with
polygon meshes or the likes.  Other than POV, I don't know of any other
renderer allowing for true mathematical surfaces as shape primitives...

> Now that process has been completed, as a group we feel the GPL3 is the way
> to go and have informally decided that 4.0 will be GPL3-licensed. [While at
> this point the GPL3 is not (as far as I know) OSI-approved, we expect that
> this will occur in due course, and in any event, the GPL has enough
> standing to hold its own.]

That's wonderful news, Chris!  I'm sure POV has many fans among the
open-source community which have not pronouced themselves until now because
of the non-usual POV license from the freeware days.

> Overall you may now have some better idea of what is in our minds and
> the process we intend to follow. The matter is we simply have to get the
> time to polish off 3.7 and do the requisite modifications to the tree to
> make it ready for the above.

thanks for the feedback, Chris.  Take all the time you need.  It's not like
3.6 sucks or has plenty of bugs...

> We are as always interested in hearing from anyone with reasonable coding
> skills who can assist, not only with the future 4.0 work but also with
> finishing 3.7.

hmm, I have some C coding skills, but I guess the main problem is not C
coding, but 3D algorithms and understanding the SDL parser...

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> The process we intend to follow (note this is not set in stone) is that
> once 3.7 is stable enough for an RC, we will make a public release of the
> 3.7 source. Some time after that (once the source is stable enough) we will
> release a modified version of the 3.7 source labeled 4.0, with all portions
> of the code that we cannot re-license stubbed out or otherwise removed.

  Does this mean that 4.0 will *not* have any kind of revised SDL language?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
>> The process we intend to follow (note this is not set in stone) is that
>> once 3.7 is stable enough for an RC, we will make a public release of the
>> 3.7 source. Some time after that (once the source is stable enough) we will
>> release a modified version of the 3.7 source labeled 4.0, with all portions
>> of the code that we cannot re-license stubbed out or otherwise removed.
> 
>   Does this mean that 4.0 will *not* have any kind of revised SDL language?

It means that it will have whatever developer resources permit it to have ;-)

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

nemesis wrote:
> Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>> However, the slow development of POV-Ray leaves me concerned that this
>>> quality program (or at least, a good deal of the community around it)
>>> may one day disappear.
> 
> I feel that too:  Pixie is just like all renderers out there, obsessed with
> polygon meshes or the likes.  Other than POV, I don't know of any other
> renderer allowing for true mathematical surfaces as shape primitives...
> 
	?? Pixie is a renderman compliant REYES renderer. That means it has
true mathematical surfaces (including true Bezier patches, which POV
doesn't have btw).

		Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
|    mailto:jeb### [at] freefr      | ICQ:    238062172            |
|    http://jeberger.free.fr/     | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr   |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFG4Yi6d0kWM4JG3k8RAi2oAJ98lzJf3EysiKKRy14LSgduE+VIywCdG5e+
bDwwPTIuBYhyTiTzzPzUxuw=
=Q3N4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message