Hi Paul,
This is very valid criticism. As I read it, there are two parts to the
issue.
> How bugs are handled.
You are absolutely right that we have done a poor job responding to
community bug reports and fixes. Both on VTK & ParaView bug trackers but
especially on the ParaView side. We have
> but I always wondered about the development process of VTK/ParaView with
> respect to bug
> reports. There seem to be a huge number of reported bugs for ParaView (and a
> few for VTK), ranging from crashes to incorrect functionality to feature
> requests.
Bugs often get prioritized by several
Hi,
On 15-06-16 16:18, Berk Geveci wrote:
I believe that the main differentiator between ParaView and other vis
tools out there is the broad functionality _and_ the code quality.
Having the two together is really tough but our community managed this
with a heavy emphasis on code review and code
Dear ParaView programmers,
> ... there seems to be no active developers community except for two or
> three kitware employees.
>
git shortlog 39fb355b..37d222b6 | grep "):" | wc -l
32
granted, most of those who committed between v5.0.0 and v5.1.0.rc1 were
from kitware, but 10x more than 3 active
I will leave it to the community to address some of these concerns since I
am obviously biased.
However, Sven made some misguided and unfair statements and I would like to
address those.
Books: Utkarsh & the ParaView community have put a lot of effort in
developing a User's Guide for ParaView,
Dear ParaView programmers,
I would like to have some opinions on the suitability of either ParaView or
Visit for large scalable visualization applications. When I had the first
contact to visualization more than 5 years ago, Visit was not quite
scalable and ParaView seemed the only open source
