Edward Coffey wrote:

> Perhaps an updated status report...

Update: They are still squashing minor bugs in 3.5.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> 
> Edward Coffey wrote:
> 
> 
>>Perhaps an updated status report...
> 
> 
> Update: They are still squashing minor bugs in 3.5.
> 

Ok, I was wrong. An update won't stop speculation.

Post a reply to this message

Edward Coffey wrote:
> 
> Given the recent conversations in this thread, and the views that you
> have made abundantly clear, could you give us an update on the following
> statement from the POV-Team Status Report, September 1, 2000:
> 
>  > Second, we are also hoping to use a much more open development model
>  > for POV 4, with public read access to our source-revision tree.
>  > System analysis, design, and implementation of POV 4 will be a very
>  > large task, and this is one way we hope to speed it up.  This open
>  > development model would also hopefully provide development releases
>  > (snapshots) more quickly to the power-user community, similar to what
>  > MegaPov offers now.
> 
> Perhaps an updated status report could save you some of the time you
> spend responding to speculation in this group.

Thank you Edward! This is indeed the point. Thorsten, could you please
approve, decline, or update this statement? What I understand from your
answers in this and similar threads:
- You don't want public read access to the source-revision tree.
- You don't want to discuss and make design decisions in a public forum.
- You don't think that an open development model speeds up the development.
- You don't want to release development releases (snapshots).
Since the statement can be found on
http://mac.povray.org/support/status.html
and your are listed in the POV-Team as Mac developer, this is rather
contradictive. Either your personal opinion is in conflict with the
majority of the POV-Team or the statemen is obsolete and should be removed 
from official public web pages.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> Thank you Edward! This is indeed the point. Thorsten, could you please
> approve, decline, or update this statement?

The 11/2000 statement part about the development model is, and always was,
for 4.0 only.

> What I understand from your answers in this and similar threads:
> - You don't want public read access to the source-revision tree.

Not for 3.5, yes.  This in line with what the team always said.  That said,
in fact several (the whole TAG, the MegaPOV developers and a few other)
non-team members do have read access to the source code.

> - You don't want to discuss and make design decisions in a public forum.

Honestly, yes, for any version.  But that is my personal opinion. Design by
majority simply does not work.

> - You don't think that an open development model speeds up the
development.

From my experinece with the 3.1 patches and the work required to make them
useable in 3.5, yes.  It is nothing against the patch authors personally,
but unfortunately the quality of many (not all!) patches was significantly
lower than anybody in the team expected.  So what worries me is that end the
end team mebers would have to go any fix all the code that is submitted
because nobody else does it... :-(

> - You don't want to release development releases (snapshots).

Not for 3.5, yes. This in line with what the team always said.

> Either your personal opinion is in conflict with the
> majority of the POV-Team or the statement is obsolete and should be
removed
> from official public web pages.

Neither what I say contradicts anything previously said. You are seeing
contradictions where there are none.

    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:17:26 +0100, Thomas Willhalm
<tho### [at] uni-konstanzde> wrote:
> Thank you Edward! This is indeed the point. Thorsten, could you please
> approve, decline, or update this statement? What I understand from your
> answers in this and similar threads:
> - You don't want public read access to the source-revision tree.
> - You don't want to discuss and make design decisions in a public forum.
> - You don't think that an open development model speeds up the development.
> - You don't want to release development releases (snapshots).
> Since the statement can be found on
> http://mac.povray.org/support/status.html
> and your are listed in the POV-Team as Mac developer, this is rather
> contradictive. Either your personal opinion is in conflict with the
> majority of the POV-Team or the statemen is obsolete and should be removed 
> from official public web pages.

Are you saying like:

( Thorsten in POV-Team ) => ( Thorsten opinion == POV-Team opinion )

which is simply false becouse group decisions usually not require unified
voice of all members.

IMO this disccusion follows wrong way. It seems that only argument to make
open development for POV 4.0 is that Thorsten is in contradiction to the rest
of the POV-Team. I do not see any argument like:
- look at this project - it moved to Open Source and community, stability and
quality increased
- look at my skills (except Vadim :) )
- look at this part of code - it is a bad design it can be done in C++ as ...
- look at this dead raytracing project - it has some good ideas in C++

Instead of valid arguments I see something like "You said ... and ... and ...
so you should not be a designer". I really want open developent of POV 4.0 and
I already started to increase my own skills and hardware as preparation to
this stage. But after such discussions I understand opportunities in the Team
- prespectives of having open development can be lost becouse time will be
wasted for discussions how zip is named. In open development we will have to
cooperate. As long as repository is not open please respect Team decisions and
rather concern more on arguments why open development can make POV better
(with examples) either becouse of your personal experience and becouse of
general advantages.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

ABX wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:17:26 +0100, Thomas Willhalm
> <tho### [at] uni-konstanzde> wrote:
>> Thank you Edward! This is indeed the point. Thorsten, could you please
>> approve, decline, or update this statement? What I understand from your
>> answers in this and similar threads:
>> - You don't want public read access to the source-revision tree.
>> - You don't want to discuss and make design decisions in a public forum.
>> - You don't think that an open development model speeds up the
>> development. - You don't want to release development releases
>> (snapshots). Since the statement can be found on
>> http://mac.povray.org/support/status.html
>> and your are listed in the POV-Team as Mac developer, this is rather
>> contradictive. Either your personal opinion is in conflict with the
>> majority of the POV-Team or the statemen is obsolete and should be
>> removed from official public web pages.
> 
> Are you saying like:
> 
> ( Thorsten in POV-Team ) => ( Thorsten opinion == POV-Team opinion )

No, I never wanted to say that. That's why I wrote:
"Either your personal opinion is in conflict with the
 majority of the POV-Team..."

I am aware of the fact that Thorsten and not the POV-Team is answering,
and Thorsten answered accordingly by pointing out where his opinion
differs from other POV-Team members.

> IMO this disccusion follows wrong way. It seems that only argument to make
> open development for POV 4.0 is that Thorsten is in contradiction to the
> rest of the POV-Team. 

Sorry, I don't think I understand this sentence. Are you saying that
in my opinion POV 4.0 should use an open model for development, because
Thorsten disagrees with some other team member? I never wanted to say
something even similar to that. 

I wanted to find out whether what Thorsten wrote in this and other 
threads more or less represents the opinion of the other POV-Team members 
and whether the cited statement still holds. Both points were answered
by Thorstens response, so I'm happy now.

> I do not see any argument like:
> - look at this project - it moved to Open Source and community, stability
> and quality increased

Well, my list of open source projects that are in my opinion valuable
comes close to this.

> - look at this dead raytracing project - it has some good ideas in C++

I did something similar: Look at these papers about fur, they look 
interesting, here is my current implementation. Unfortunately, nobody 
else was interested.

> Instead of valid arguments I see something like "You said ... and ... and
> ... so you should not be a designer". 

I never said that Thorsten shouldn't be a designer or anything similar
to that. I never questioned Thorsten's position in the POV-Team
and if you got this impression (e.g. because of my bad English), I would
like to correct this here.

As I already said, my questions are answered and in my opinion we can
move on now (although I really wished the POV 4.0 age would start
soon and rumors about it could stop).

Happy tracing
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:18:50 +0100, Thomas Willhalm
<tho### [at] uni-konstanzde> wrote:
> No, I never wanted to say that. That's why I wrote:
> "Either your personal opinion is in conflict with the
> majority of the POV-Team..."
>
> I am aware of the fact that Thorsten and not the POV-Team is answering,
> and Thorsten answered accordingly by pointing out where his opinion
> differs from other POV-Team members.

How it can make the progress better nowadays? Does Thorsten's explanation
changed meaning of http://mac.povray.org/support/status.html ? If not the
whole discussion is a waste of time when 3.51 is coming.

> > IMO this disccusion follows wrong way. It seems that only argument to make
> > open development for POV 4.0 is that Thorsten is in contradiction to the
> > rest of the POV-Team. 
>
> Sorry, I don't think I understand this sentence. Are you saying that
> in my opinion ...

That's the problem, please not make such discussions "you said ... that I said
... but I said ...". Please find "you" in quoted text. Then please find text
"this discussion" :-)

> > I do not see any argument like:
> > - look at this project - it moved to Open Source and community, stability
> > and quality increased
>
> Well, my list of open source projects that are in my opinion valuable
> comes close to this.

Show us the list of those projects. Show us the list of designers, maintainers
and fixed / not fixed bugs there.

> > - look at this dead raytracing project - it has some good ideas in C++
>
> I did something similar: Look at these papers about fur, they look 
> interesting, here is my current implementation. Unfortunately, nobody 
> else was interested.

I do not remember this. Which post of
http://news.povray.org/search/advanced/?s=%22Thomas+Willhalm%22&&a=1
contain link to your papers ?

> As I already said, my questions are answered and in my opinion we can
> move on now (although I really wished the POV 4.0 age would start
> soon and rumors about it could stop).

I wish it too. If it only could be done the way that MegaPOV is taking role of
bugfixer so Team can concern on making rules for 4.0...

ABX

Post a reply to this message

In article <3e4ccfe5@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm 
<tho### [at] uni-konstanzde>  wrote:

BTW, something is wrong with your computer's time setting.  It would be nice
if you would fix it.

    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

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
 >>Thank you Edward! This is indeed the point. Thorsten, could you please
 >>approve, decline, or update this statement?
 >
 >
 > The 11/2000 statement part about the development model is, and always 
was,
 > for 4.0 only.
 >
 >
 >>What I understand from your answers in this and similar threads:
 >>- You don't want public read access to the source-revision tree.
 >
 >
 > Not for 3.5, yes.  This in line with what the team always said.  That 
said,
 > in fact several (the whole TAG, the MegaPOV developers and a few other)
 > non-team members do have read access to the source code

Therein lay my confusion, I didn't realise that you had been referring
only to 3.5 development. Thanks for the clarification.

 >>- You don't want to discuss and make design decisions in a public forum.
 >
 >
 > Honestly, yes, for any version.  But that is my personal opinion. 
Design by
 > majority simply does not work.

Certainly not. But discussing and making design decisions in a public
forum does allow interested parties to make suggestions, none of which
you need to follow, but some of which may be useful. It also allows
people to better understand motivations, philosophy and overall
direction of the project, so they ask fewer dumb "Why don't you...?"
questions, they make fewer uninformed, poor quality suggestions, and
more high quality, useful ones. So, I hope 4.0 does take this path, but 
I agree that design by majority is a bad idea.

 >>- You don't think that an open development model speeds up the
 >
 > development.
 >
 > From my experinece with the 3.1 patches and the work required to make 
them
 > useable in 3.5, yes.  It is nothing against the patch authors personally,
 > but unfortunately the quality of many (not all!) patches was 
significantly
 > lower than anybody in the team expected.  So what worries me is that 
end the
 > end team mebers would have to go any fix all the code that is submitted
 > because nobody else does it... :-(

Nope, you just say "We'll look at that patch just as soon as your
implementation doesn't suck." With the possibility that they can have
their feature included if they clean it up a little, I suspect people
are likely to do so. You have the added benefit that because there are
more people around with a better understanding of the standards required
etc. they, rather than you, can help people clean up their patches.

 >>- You don't want to release development releases (snapshots).
 >
 >
 > Not for 3.5, yes. This in line with what the team always said.
 >
 >
 >>Either your personal opinion is in conflict with the
 >>majority of the POV-Team or the statement is obsolete and should be
 >
 > removed
 >
 >>from official public web pages.
 >
 >
 > Neither what I say contradicts anything previously said. You are seeing
 > contradictions where there are none.

Quite so.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/31/19 6:20 AM, masonlava wrote:

POV-Ray does not directly support HP printers, only Centronics.  There
used to be a patch that added PCL-2 but it was never updated to color PCL-5.


-- 
dik
Rendered 1024 of 921600 pixels (0%)

Post a reply to this message