Liz wrote:
>I am curious if people have topics they'd like to discuss at the
Croquet Technical
>Meeting tomorrow. I personally hope we can talk about rendering performance in
>Croquet and maybe OpenGL and some of the cool stuff David Faught has been
>looking into. Anyone else have any suggestions?
Hi Liz! and everyone else on this list (you know who you are),
I'm always ready to talk about the cool stuff I've been playing with,
as you might tell from the developer mailing list, but let me bring up
another topic. Under the Distributions and Testing Working Group page
at
http://croquetconsortium.org/index.php/Distributions_and_Testing_Working_Groupis the suggested release schedule for Jabberwocky, which indicates
that it should be coming out this month. This schedule was suggested,
to the best of my knowledge, mostly to reduce the problems in keeping
a developer image up to date with new changes being added to the
repositories.
Looking at the current state of things, Qwaq through Andreas released
a set of important changes, which are mostly fixes, and I have my set
of favorite things in the Hedgehog PublicContribs repository, but I
don't see too many other candidates for things to include in the new
release. From my vantage point, there has been very little progress
on the Jabberwocky roadmap.
So, a few possibilities for discussion:
1. Is it worth putting out a new release basically consisting of
Qwaq's fixes, or
2. Don't bother at this time because there haven't been enough changes
to complicate things. (What is the new target date?)
3. Are there other options to consider, like removing the demo worlds
from the "core" image and maintaining them separately in the
repositories? I'm not sure this really accomplishes much other than
pointing out what is core functionality and what is not.
4. The whole other discussion of if or how to incorporate
publicly-contributed fixes and maybe some of my (and others) fun toys
;-)
Cheers,
Dave
Locked
