the 3.6.2 came out in 2009. isn't it time for the next big volcano blast?

Post a reply to this message

> the 3.6.2 came out in 2009. isn't it time for the next big volcano blast?
>
>
>
Look for version 3.7 RC7 to come out soon. (RC6 is available now, and 
RC7 will replace it very soon)
It's a major ovehaul, including multi processor support, subsurface 
light transport, back side illumination, area illumination for area 
lights, LOTS of bug fixes,...

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:50:56 -0500, swampie wrote:

> the 3.6.2 came out in 2009. isn't it time for the next big volcano
> blast?

I think the official answer is "after 3.7" and after 3.7 is out, then 
it's "when it's ready and not one second before then".

Version numbers are ultimately pretty meaningless.  I don't think many 
users of POV-Ray care about the version numbers so much as about the 
features.

So are there particular features you're interested in?  If there are, 
then ask about those and see what answers you get.  That'd be better than 
asking for when the next version is coming out.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 15:50:56 -0500, swampie wrote:
>
> > the 3.6.2 came out in 2009. isn't it time for the next big volcano
> > blast?
>
> I think the official answer is "after 3.7" and after 3.7 is out, then
> it's "when it's ready and not one second before then".
>
> Version numbers are ultimately pretty meaningless.  I don't think many
> users of POV-Ray care about the version numbers so much as about the
> features.
>
> So are there particular features you're interested in?  If there are,
> then ask about those and see what answers you get.  That'd be better than
> asking for when the next version is coming out.
>
> Jim

Don't look now, Jim but your mother may have raised a smartass. If you look at
the post above yours you will see a very informative, professional answer. An
absolutely useful one, unlike yours.

Small suggestion: Ask your sister for a lesson on how not to get your panties in
a wad.

Post a reply to this message

Am 21.02.2013 04:42, schrieb swampie:

> Don't look now, Jim but your mother may have raised a smartass. If you look at
> the post above yours you will see a very informative, professional answer. An
> absolutely useful one, unlike yours.

Jim's answer is definitely more useful than your reply to it, and I'd 
personally prefer a smartass over someone who gets personal anytime. 
(Not that I would consider Jim's answer particularly smart-assed, mind you.)

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:42:42 -0500, swampie wrote:

> Don't look now, Jim but your mother may have raised a smartass. If you
> look at the post above yours you will see a very informative,
> professional answer. An absolutely useful one, unlike yours.
> 
> Small suggestion: Ask your sister for a lesson on how not to get your
> panties in a wad.

Well, ain't that nice.  Getting personal when I gave you a serious answer 
just because you didn't like it.

Go on, ask me how much I really care.

Then go back and re-read the answer I gave you - paying particular 
attention to the final paragraph, where I asked you what you should see 
as a *very* important question.

In all seriousness, ISTR there being a place on the POV-Ray site where 
that specific answer was given - it used to be a FAQ, and the answer was 
"don't ask - it'll be released when it's ready and not one minute sooner".

So rather than shoot the messenger, consider that the answer is actually 
a *serious* answer, delivered with humour that's been used in the past 
for such questions.  

If you don't like it, fine, but there's really no need to get all pissy 
about an answer you didn't like.  That's just juvenile - and what's more, 
it's "unprofessional" (since that seems to be an important thing to you - 
maybe you should learn to practice what you preach; just sayin')

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 01:24:24 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

> In all seriousness, ISTR there being a place on the POV-Ray site where
> that specific answer was given - it used to be a FAQ, and the answer was
> "don't ask - it'll be released when it's ready and not one minute
> sooner".

Ah, yes.  Here:

http://tinyurl.com/bjugxlq

Note the second paragraph from the end:

"Please note that there is no firm schedule for the final release of
POV-Ray 3.6. We have a reputation of releasing very stable software and
intend that to remain so. The final version will be released when we are
happy with it, and not before. We cannot give a date for this!"

You're welcome.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:42:42 -0500, swampie wrote:
>
> > Don't look now, Jim but your mother may have raised a smartass. If you
> > look at the post above yours you will see a very informative,
> > professional answer. An absolutely useful one, unlike yours.
> >
> > Small suggestion: Ask your sister for a lesson on how not to get your
> > panties in a wad.
>
> [snip]
>
> In all seriousness, ISTR there being a place on the POV-Ray site where
> that specific answer was given - it used to be a FAQ, and the answer was
> "don't ask - it'll be released when it's ready and not one minute sooner".

I recall reading something to this effect not long after I downloaded POV-Ray
3.5 in 2003.  Every time I see someone post this question, I think, "You're not
supposed to ask that question."

At first, I thought swampie just had an innocent question, having failed to run
across that FAQ.  Now, I'm not so sure.

Considering what I paid for POV-Ray, I can't complain about the release
schedule.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:32:10 -0500, Cousin Ricky wrote:

>> In all seriousness, ISTR there being a place on the POV-Ray site where
>> that specific answer was given - it used to be a FAQ, and the answer
>> was "don't ask - it'll be released when it's ready and not one minute
>> sooner".
> 
> I recall reading something to this effect not long after I downloaded
> POV-Ray 3.5 in 2003.  Every time I see someone post this question, I
> think, "You're not supposed to ask that question."

Yeah, I think that's the one that I saw as well, and linked to in my 
"reply to self".

> At first, I thought swampie just had an innocent question, having failed
> to run across that FAQ.  Now, I'm not so sure.

I think it's a shame that there are people who are humour-challenged and 
feel it's necessary to complain about the answer they are given when they 
ask a question.  I'm sure you've seen me deal with that in the other 
venue we both frequent. :)

Here, I'm not an admin, just a very long-time user (maybe it's time to 
see how many of us still remember the POVRAY forum on CompuServe).

> Considering what I paid for POV-Ray, I can't complain about the release
> schedule.

Nor I.  I've done what I can to help out when I've had time or the 
necessary contacts to help facilitate things, which seems "fair" (in the 
sense that I'm trying to give /something/ back, but it always feels  
inadequate).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:32:10 -0500, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> > Considering what I paid for POV-Ray, I can't complain about the release
> > schedule.
>
> Nor I.  I've done what I can to help out when I've had time or the
> necessary contacts to help facilitate things, which seems "fair" (in the
> sense that I'm trying to give /something/ back, but it always feels
> inadequate).

I know the feeling.

Post a reply to this message