>> The timing here is unfortunate too. >> It's not nice for Daniel Stokes to find out the BGE will be >> discontinued the day he starts working on GSOC. (BGE Level of Detail >> and Bug Fixing/Polishing) >> Bug-fixing a system that gets removed in a year isn't such good use of >> resources. > > I was unaware of this and have to agree, the timing sucks. That said, I'm not > sure if it's a great argument for keeping the BGE as it is and integrated as > it is. The whole "sunk cost fallacy" comes to mind and, while I don't want to > be callous to Daniel Stokes, I can't see that his GSOC project will really > change the underlying motivations that prompted this move.
Then it may be a good argument for Daniel to make a start on interactive-animation tools, > There are folks on BlenderArtists talking about the large number of patches > contributed for BGE that never made trunk and would almost constitute a fork > themselves if applied (they're calling it the "HG1 build". This is a symptom > of the developer effort allocation problem mentioned earlier and would apply > as much to a GSOC project as any other large patch correct? While this is a valid point, (as far as I know) none of these devs have stepped up to really supporting the BGE and helping become a maintainer. They mostly submit one feature they need for their game, then become inactive with BGE dev. ... you could argue this is catch22 - if we accepted their patches they would become more active and submit more fixes.... but I still think if someone really wanted to become active and take the BGE forward they could - despite some slow patch review. > -- > Benjamin Tolputt > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > Bf-committers@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers -- - Campbell _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers