Am 15.07.2021 um 16:14 schrieb jr:

>> Can you please file an issue report on GitHub, to put a propoer pin in this?
> 
> went there, cannot add an "issue" without acquiring an account.  sorry.

I'd argue that it's worth it, given that it's free of charge. It may not 
be the last issue you might want to report.

GitHub _is_ our preferred place for bug reports these days.

And we're by far not the only ones. There is an ever growing number of 
other pieces of open source software out there that have GitHub as their 
_only_ official channel for bug reporting. Having a GitHub account opens 
up the door to those, too.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 15.07.2021 um 16:14 schrieb jr:
>
> >> Can you please file an issue report on GitHub, to put a propoer pin in this?
> >
> > went there, cannot add an "issue" without acquiring an account.  sorry.
>
> I'd argue that it's worth it, given that it's free of charge. It may not
> be the last issue you might want to report.

I'm sure that people like you, self-confessed "Windows jockeys" that is, find
the  environment .. conducive to your working.  a bit like Linux distributions,
some people find Ubuntu/Debian "floats their boat".

fwiw, the 'github.com/POV-Ray/povray/tags' page would benefit from showing
checksums (sha256?) for the archives, too.


> GitHub _is_ our preferred place for bug reports these days.

sure.  (though regrettable from my perspective)  as long as no account is needed
to download the source archive.


> And we're by far not the only ones. There is an ever growing number of
> other pieces of open source software ...

the "not the only ones" argument reminds me of an old saying "people, eat more
shit, four billion flies can't be wrong".  fifteen or twenty years ago,
SourceForge was the place to be (seen) on, maybe github will do better, who
knows?


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.07.2021 um 13:45 schrieb jr:

> fwiw, the 'github.com/POV-Ray/povray/tags' page would benefit from showing
> checksums (sha256?) for the archives, too.

I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be.

If you do not trust to get the proper archives from GitHub, I see no 
reason to trust that you'll see the proper SHAs for those files.

(Or do you mena SHAs of the commits corresponding to those tags? Well, 
the first 7 digits of those _are_ shown on that page; and if you click 
on those, it'll take you to a page where the full SHA of the commit is 
shown in all its glory.)

Now, publishing checksums on the POV-Ray home page, that might be 
another matter. But even then, it only really makes sense for versions 
we build on our own machines and upload to GitHub later. Not so much for 
the betas: They are built directly on GitHub servers.

(And yes, I do trust Microsoft's GitHub servers more than I do my own 
Windows 10 machine.)


>> GitHub _is_ our preferred place for bug reports these days.
> 
> sure.  (though regrettable from my perspective)  as long as no account is needed
> to download the source archive.

These days, there is pretty much no software project that allows the 
reporting of bugs without _some_ form of identification. It's just not 
possible anymore - they'd be swamped by spambots.

And with that in mind, I for one welcome our new insect overl... erm, I 
mean, I for one applaud every project that uses some reasonably common 
bug tracking service, rather than rolling their own. Because although I 
do agree that it sucks to be unable to report a bug without registering 
_somewhere_, in my opinion it sucks less if that registration is good 
for multiple pieces of software that I use.


>> And we're by far not the only ones. There is an ever growing number of
>> other pieces of open source software ...
> 
> the "not the only ones" argument reminds me of an old saying "people, eat more
> shit, four billion flies can't be wrong".  fifteen or twenty years ago,
> SourceForge was the place to be (seen) on, maybe github will do better, who
> knows?

SourceForge thought they could exploit their pole position with 
impunity. Which is how they lost it to GitHub.

We didn't go to GitHub because we thought it was the bee's knees; we 
went there because we decided to set up a public repository, in hopes to 
get more people to contribute - and SourceForge had just gone rogue at 
the time we were ready to actually go ahead with that step. GitHub just 
happened to be pretty much the only contender, and actually we were 
initially quite skeptical, not the least because we had no experience 
with Git in particular nor even any other distributed version control 
system in general.

Looking back, I'm sure it wasn't the worst of choices.


Also, I'm not saying you should join the flies and host your own 
projects there (although I might, if you were to ask for advice in that 
matter). Going with that image, it's more like I'm saying that if you 
want to catch flies, that's where to find lots of them. That's not a 
question of taste - it's just pure matter of fact.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> ... github ...

I suspect you could sell ice boxes to the inuit -- in mid-winter.  ;-)


>> fwiw, ... checksums ...
>
> I'm not sure what the benefit of that would be.
>
> If you do not trust to get the proper archives from GitHub, I see no
> reason to trust that you'll see the proper SHAs for those files.

not worried/paranoid about GitHub as an organisation, just wary of .. clever
individuals, who always find some nook or cranny.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> ... v3.8.0-beta.1 ...
> Happy Testing!

when I run the beta with '-cc +w400 +h300 +a +rtr +kla', the preview window pops
up but shows nothing.  the current 'povr' is fine with exact same command-line.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.07.2021 um 13:07 schrieb jr:
> hi,
> 
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> ... v3.8.0-beta.1 ...
>> Happy Testing!
> 
> when I run the beta with '-cc +w400 +h300 +a +rtr +kla', the preview window pops
> up but shows nothing.  the current 'povr' is fine with exact same command-line.

"povr" is not POV-Ray. It is a derivative work by someone who also 
happens to work on POV.Ray.

I don't have the capacity (nor even an overwiew of what would have to be 
done) to merge Bill's changes into POV-Ray proper.

Post a reply to this message

"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> when I run the beta with '-cc +w400 +h300 +a +rtr +kla', the preview window pops
> up but shows nothing.
>
Those settings work OK in the Windows version.

Do you correctly have *multiple* camera in your scene for rtr and kla to work
properly? (or a #while/#for loop to generate the multiple cameras?) With just a
single camera in such a scene, the parsing/rendering seems to go into an
endless(?) loop-- although I still see a single render of my scene in the
preview, not a blank screen like you mention.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> ...With just a
> single camera in such a scene, the parsing/rendering seems to go into an
> endless(?) loop--

I mean an endless loop with the computer chugging away, but doing nothing. The
real-time raytracing feature, when working properly, also generates an endless
looping animation-- but that's with all the new camera positions, one after the
other.

Post a reply to this message

hi,

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> "jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >
> > when I run the beta with '-cc +w400 +h300 +a +rtr +kla', the preview window pops
> > up but shows nothing.
> >
> Those settings work OK in the Windows version.
>
> Do you correctly have *multiple* camera in your scene for rtr and kla to work
> properly? ...

I think so, yes.  the code (and command-line) works fine with one particular
executable (WFP's povr) but not with the official "unofficial" alpha + beta
versions I have.  cheers.


regards, jr.

Post a reply to this message

Rendering a 3.8 version scene which includes functions.inc, I get the 
following parse warning:

"functions.inc" line 167: Parse warning: use of POV-Ray v3.7 keyword 
('deprecated') detected in alleged v3.5 scene.

The only place were version 3.5 is mentioned is precisely at the start 
of functions.inc:

#ifndef(Functions_Inc_Temp)
#declare Functions_Inc_Temp = version;
#version 3.5;
...
#end

At the mentioned line 167 of this /new/ functions.inc shipped with the 
beta, a /new/ if statement has been introduced, not there in previous 
versions:

#if (Functions_Inc_Temp < 3.8)
     #declare deprecated once "f_enneper was broken prior to v3.8; 
results will most likely differ."
              f_enneper = function { internal(18) }
#else
     #declare f_enneper = function { internal(18) }
#end


-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message