|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Wolfgang Wieser
Subject: [patch] Suggesting trivial patch (again)
Date: 9 Feb 2003 16:08:51
Message: <3e46c362@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry for re-posting this on the newsgroup but I did not get
any response to it.
What about applying this trivial patch?
I think there is no need to continue the for() loop once
we set found=true.
/* NK phmap */
/* this function checks if 'object' is equal to 'parent' or is a child
* of 'parent'
*/
static int IsObjectInCSG(OBJECT *Object, OBJECT *parent)
{
OBJECT *Sib;
int found;
if (Object == parent) return true;
found = false;
if(parent->Type & IS_COMPOUND_OBJECT)
{
for (Sib = ((CSG *)parent)->Children; Sib != NULL; Sib = Sib->Sibling)
{
if(IsObjectInCSG(Object, Sib))
- found = true;
+ { found = true; break; }
}
}
return found;
}
BTW, I would appreciate if you could establish ordinary version
numbers like everybody else does. I mean, the file povuni_s.tgz
on the FTP should be a symlink to povuni_s-3.5c.tgz or whatever.
Making available incremental paches would be helpful, too because
that makes it easier to keep a modified version around (though this
is not necessary because I can make the patch myself).
Wolfgang
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: [patch] Suggesting trivial patch (again)
Date: 9 Feb 2003 17:24:27
Message: <3e46d51b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3e46c362@news.povray.org> , Wolfgang Wieser <wwi### [at] gmxde>
wrote:
> What about applying this trivial patch?
> I think there is no need to continue the for() loop once
> we set found=true.
Yes, it has been noted. It will be included sometime in the future.
> BTW, I would appreciate if you could establish ordinary version
> numbers like everybody else does. I mean, the file povuni_s.tgz
> on the FTP should be a symlink to povuni_s-3.5c.tgz or whatever.
The updates are platform specific. Thus there is no new version, it is
still the same version of POV-Ray.
> Making available incremental paches would be helpful, too because
> that makes it easier to keep a modified version around (though this
> is not necessary because I can make the patch myself).
Due to the cross-platform nature of POV-Ray this is not feasible as it would
have to include platform specific as well as cross-platform changes.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas Willhalm
Subject: Re: [patch] Suggesting trivial patch (again)
Date: 11 Feb 2003 08:13:22
Message: <3e48f6f1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3e46c362@news.povray.org> , Wolfgang Wieser <wwi### [at] gmxde>
> wrote:
>
>> BTW, I would appreciate if you could establish ordinary version
>> numbers like everybody else does. I mean, the file povuni_s.tgz
>> on the FTP should be a symlink to povuni_s-3.5c.tgz or whatever.
>
> The updates are platform specific. Thus there is no new version, it is
> still the same version of POV-Ray.
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Wolfgang. A version number in the
file name would make sense. It's hard to guess, whether povuni_s.tgz
contains the sources for 3.1, 3.5, 3.5b, 3.6, or whatever. Of course,
if there is no difference in the source code between 3.5a and 3.5b,
it would be povuni_s-3.5.tgz. Different files should get different
(recognizable) names.
I am aware of the fact that there are still DOS users out there that
need a 8.3 filename. For the sake of the majority of the users however,
longer names would be preferable. If I remember correctly from the old
DOS days, ftp shortens the filename automatically. So, DOS users would
not be harmed, but wouldn't benefit from version numbers.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3e46c362@news.povray.org> , Wolfgang Wieser
> <wwi### [at] gmxde> wrote:
>
>> What about applying this trivial patch?
>> I think there is no need to continue the for() loop once
>> we set found=true.
>
> Yes, it has been noted. It will be included sometime in the future.
How about keeping a running snapshot of the latest work in progress on the
FTP, no guarantees that it will actually compile, use at your own folly etc
etc
--
Rick
Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037
PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: [patch] Suggesting trivial patch (again)
Date: 11 Feb 2003 14:42:16
Message: <3e495218$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3e48f6f1@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm
<tho### [at] uni-konstanzde> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Wolfgang. A version number in the
> file name would make sense. It's hard to guess, whether povuni_s.tgz
> contains the sources for 3.1, 3.5, 3.5b, 3.6, or whatever. Of course,
> if there is no difference in the source code between 3.5a and 3.5b,
> it would be povuni_s-3.5.tgz. Different files should get different
> (recognizable) names.
There are no changes to the code that are not Unix specific. Labeling the
code as you suggest would only cause confusion.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: [patch] Suggesting trivial patch (again)
Date: 11 Feb 2003 14:43:38
Message: <3e49526a$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3e492545$1@news.povray.org> , "Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com>
wrote:
> How about keeping a running snapshot of the latest work in progress on the
> FTP, no guarantees that it will actually compile, use at your own folly etc
> etc
No, that would expose changes that require platform specific changes to work
in the first place. And we do not release such version for very good
reasons, which are obvious if you think about what would happen if we did
release such a source code version, and which in fact did happen in the
past...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas Willhalm
Subject: Re: [patch] Suggesting trivial patch (again)
Date: 12 Feb 2003 04:08:26
Message: <3e4a0f09@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3e48f6f1@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm
> <tho### [at] uni-konstanzde> wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Wolfgang. A version number in the
>> file name would make sense. It's hard to guess, whether povuni_s.tgz
>> contains the sources for 3.1, 3.5, 3.5b, 3.6, or whatever. Of course,
>> if there is no difference in the source code between 3.5a and 3.5b,
>> it would be povuni_s-3.5.tgz. Different files should get different
>> (recognizable) names.
>
> There are no changes to the code that are not Unix specific. Labeling the
> code as you suggest would only cause confusion.
Are you ignoring our point on purpose? We want _version_numbers_ in the
_filename_. The archive for 3.5 with source code for unix is called
povuni_s.tgz, the archive for 3.1g with source code for unix is called
povuni_s.tgz, and the archive for 3.0 with source code for unix is called
povuni_s.tgz. If you don't believe me, check it yourself on ftp.povray.org.
I agree with you that one should use the same name if two archives contain
the same code. However, I'm sure that this is not the case for the source
code of povray 3.0 and povray 3.5 (for any platform).
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: [patch] Suggesting trivial patch (again)
Date: 12 Feb 2003 04:52:59
Message: <3e4a197b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3e4a0f09@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm
<tho### [at] uni-konstanzde> wrote:
> Are you ignoring our point on purpose? We want _version_numbers_ in the
> _filename_. The archive for 3.5 with source code for unix is called
> povuni_s.tgz, the archive for 3.1g with source code for unix is called
> povuni_s.tgz, and the archive for 3.0 with source code for unix is called
> povuni_s.tgz. If you don't believe me, check it yourself on ftp.povray.org.
But what is the problem with that? They are in two completely different
directories!!! It doesn't cause any problems for the other platforms, and
didn't in the past ten years for Unix either, so why would it be a problem
for Unix archives today? If someone does not even bother to check about the
directory they are in, well, sorry, a tiny bit of thinking is required when
downloading software.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas Willhalm
Subject: Re: [patch] Suggesting trivial patch (again)
Date: 12 Feb 2003 05:01:46
Message: <3e4a1b89@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3e492545$1@news.povray.org> , "Rick [Kitty5]"
> <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
>
>> How about keeping a running snapshot of the latest work in progress on
>> the FTP, no guarantees that it will actually compile, use at your own
>> folly etc etc
>
> No, that would expose changes that require platform specific changes to
> work
> in the first place. And we do not release such version for very good
> reasons, which are obvious if you think about what would happen if we did
> release such a source code version, and which in fact did happen in the
> past...
Seems like I'm too stupid to see what's obvious to you. The following
open source projects have public developer version:
OpenOffice
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/643c/source.html#getsource
GCC http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html
KDE http://developer.kde.org/build/compile_cvs.html
Gnome http://developer.gnome.org/tools/cvs.html
FreeBSD http://www.freebsd.org/support.html#cvs
Linux http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.5/
Xfree http://www.xfree86.org/cvs/
Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/cvs.html
Apache http://www.apache.org/foundation/cvs.html
Darwin http://developer.apple.com/darwin/tools/cvs/
Blender http://projects.blender.org/cvsx/?group_id=9
Wings3d http://sourceforge.net/cvs/?group_id=33028
Why does it work for them but not for you?
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thorsten Froehlich
Subject: Re: [patch] Suggesting trivial patch (again)
Date: 12 Feb 2003 09:02:38
Message: <3e4a53fe@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3e4a1b89@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm
<tho### [at] uni-konstanzde> wrote:
> Why does it work for them but not for you?
Because fools (aka people who don't read any manuals, readmes, etc) start
patching those versions and the distribute them. Or people compile them and
never update and then come back three years later complaining that bugs
supposedly haven't been fixed. Has happened in the past...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|