 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/21/2010 1:03 PM, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> A very interesting conjecture. However, I have a real life, so you will
> have to discuss your conjecture with someone else.
>
> Thorsten
Great. So items on bugtracker will survive based on whether a person has
time in "real life" or, as implied in the other thread, on the attitude
of the person who submitted the item. That sounds EXACTLY like the
intended purpose of a software bug tracking system. In fact, why not
also delete SVN branches because said person mentioned something about
your mother?
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trf de> wrote:
> On 21.06.10 18:01, Warp wrote:
> >>> Given that meshes which approximate the same shape as a complex CSG
> >>> composed of other primitves sometimes renders faster than that CSG object,
> >>> I don't see how an isosurface would be even faster than that. On the
> >>> contrary, an isosurface with the same shape as the complex CSG most probably
> >>> would render at least an order of magnitude slower than the original CSG
> >>> object.
> >
> >> Not sure where you read isosurfaces are faster than CSG. Oh well :-(
> >
> > "the probable assumption that a high quality mesh would be faster to
> > generate and then render compared to a native object (i.e. an isosurface)
> > is incorrect."
> >
> > If you claim that rendering an isosurface is faster than generating a
> > mesh from it and then rendering it, you are also implying that rendering
> > an isosurface is faster than rendering a (complex) CSG because there are
> > cases where meshes are faster to render than CSG. If meshes are faster than
> > CSG and isosurfaces are faster than meshes, it logically follows that
> > isosurfaces are faster than CSG.
> A very interesting conjecture. However, I have a real life, so you will have
> to discuss your conjecture with someone else.
I wonder if this will be a permanent pattern from this time forward:
Every time you make a post and I respond to it, you see me attacking you,
regardless of what my intentions truly are and what the topic in question
is, and when I try to explain myself, you invariable resort to some kind
of meta-discussion instead of discussing about the relevant subject at hand.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21.06.10 19:06, SharkD wrote:
> On 6/20/2010 7:10 AM, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>>> Sure. And until then there's no reason for its removal from bugtracker.
>>
>> Its not removed. It is closed. All closed bugs are still visible.
>
> Fine. Then there's no reason for it to be _closed_ on bugtracker. Smart
> guy.
You real think insulting me will get you any further? You already misbehaved
twice. First by vandalizing the Wiki, the by vandalizing the bug tracker. No
need to vandalize the newsgroups as well.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/21/2010 1:16 PM, Warp wrote:
> I wonder if this will be a permanent pattern from this time forward:
> Every time you make a post and I respond to it, you see me attacking you,
> regardless of what my intentions truly are and what the topic in question
> is, and when I try to explain myself, you invariable resort to some kind
> of meta-discussion instead of discussing about the relevant subject at hand.
>
It's because you're invading his precious territory.
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Of course the *major* problem here is: Which tesselation algorithm to use,
> and how to implement it? And who is going to implement it?
oh, the last one is easy: I vote for the pov-team. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'd like to throw my 10c in here WRT to this thread (which is getting a
little long so I won't attempt to cover all the issues).
The way the bugtracker works with regard to 'closed' bugs isn't easily
altered (in that they don't turn up in searches by default). I will attempt
to rectify this later.
Comments on closed bugs were previously not available; they are now -
hopefully this will allow easier feedback.
When reporting a bug or making a feature request please try to be detailed
and especially include platform and version details.
Also, it would help us a bit if closely-related feature requests were
grouped together; e.g. the recent requests for Windows UI enhancements with
respect to the editor could reasonably have been put into a single request
(all at once or via editing a bug later).
Before posting a feature or bug request, it might be useful to sound it out
with other users first. This doesn't mean you have to run it by us, but
getting other user's feedback can help improve the quality of the requests
we get. This isn't a hard and fast rule, it's just a suggestion.
Please keep in mind that we (like most open-source projects) are
under-manned so doing things in such a way as to make it easier for us to
track helps. The bugtracker is of course there for that reason, but as I've
pointed out it's important to make the reports as useful for us as
reasonably possible. Higher quality reports == more chance we'll pay close
attention.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/21/2010 4:09 PM, Chris Cason wrote:
> Also, it would help us a bit if closely-related feature requests were
> grouped together; e.g. the recent requests for Windows UI enhancements with
> respect to the editor could reasonably have been put into a single request
> (all at once or via editing a bug later).
No, as per the bug reporting instructions which say, "Only report one
bug or request one feature per task."
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23.06.10 01:11, SharkD wrote:
> On 6/21/2010 4:09 PM, Chris Cason wrote:
>> Also, it would help us a bit if closely-related feature requests were
>> grouped together; e.g. the recent requests for Windows UI enhancements
>> with
>> respect to the editor could reasonably have been put into a single
>> request
>> (all at once or via editing a bug later).
>
> No, as per the bug reporting instructions which say, "Only report one
> bug or request one feature per task."
You know whom you are talking to, don't you? - This reminds me of my
favourite quote: "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
I wonder if this also applies to writing? Hmm...
Anyhow, here is how you could have summarized feature requests 138, 139 and
140 in a single report. It is really easy, I am sure next time you can
follow these instructions:
1. Power up brain.
2. Wait for brain to boot.
3. Enable ability to think.
4. Think about the features "Rename file", "Delete file", "Reload file".
5. Make sure brain concludes the features belong in the "File" menu.
6. Think about the "File" menu and conclude it groups file functions.
7. Think about feature request to extend the "File" menu.
8. Make sure to name "Rename", "Delete" and "Reload" possible extensions.
9. Let brain command body to type and submit feature request.
10. Disable ability to think.
11. Power down brain.
12. Wait for brain to power down.
13. Return to normal zombie activities.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2010 12:18 PM, Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> You know whom you are talking to, don't you? - This reminds me of my
> favourite quote: "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
> I wonder if this also applies to writing? Hmm...
...and someone could just as easily have bitched about /not/ reporting
them as separate tasks. Was there a way to know this beforehand? No. Are
you an asshole? Yes.
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/21/2010 4:09 PM, Chris Cason wrote:
> Before posting a feature or bug request, it might be useful to sound it out
> with other users first. This doesn't mean you have to run it by us, but
> getting other user's feedback can help improve the quality of the requests
> we get. This isn't a hard and fast rule, it's just a suggestion.
There is a discussion area in bugtracker for this, no?
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
