Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
2.0 doesn't run on my machine, until it does, I couldn't work on it even if I desired to. Other people are in the same position. On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Aleric Inglewood wrote: > Hi Oz, > > I already communicated this clearly to merov, but I'll summarize it here: > > As you can see from > https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AgvC7hm5YZqcdHVXb05iTE0wTFc0bWptTW4tOTZuS3c&hl=en&ui=2#gid=0 > all my patches larger than one line, being > > VWR-14914 (SNOW-673) > SNOW-84 (SNOW-546), > SNOW-103 (SNOW-688), > SNOW-240, > SNOW-129 (SNOW-670) > SNOW-408, > SNOW-477, > VWR-12984 (SNOW-643) > > were like .. ignored. > > Merov ported VWR-14914, and I even helped with two others > because my friends started porting it... but basically: > > I'm not stupid and I try not to make the same mistake twice. > Therefore, I won't port my patches to 2.0 (for them to be ignored, > again in 3.0 or God knows), certainly not considering that I'm > not even using 2.0 (for reasons pointed out by others). > > So, to answer your question, in order to get me to contribute > to 2.0 Linden Lab will have to get their payed coders to port > my patches to 2.0 external (not SG, but the real thing), AND > fix the UI of 2.0 so it becomes interesting for me to use it > instead of 1.x). > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) > wrote: >> >> I opened this in the 27 May IW open source meeting, and would like to >> invite wider and more specific feedback. >> >> It's fairly clear that Linden Lab doesn't have the resources to devote >> to active work on both Snowglobe 1.x and 2.x, and it's not efficient for >> the community as a whole to be splitting effort. >> >> I'd like to fairly quickly get to the point where all our new work is >> happening on the 2.x branch. That said, I understand that might leave >> behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some >> people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know >> is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be >> happy with? >> >> One of my goals is to increase the rate and volume at which Linden Lab >> can (and _does_) take changes from the open source base into the >> internal code, but unless we can keep everyone on the same branch, that >> will be much more difficult. >> >> Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move >> development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source >> meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. >> >> >> >> To be clear... I don't object to anyone else working on 1.x at all; I'd >> just like to know why so that we can tempt them to join us on 2.x >> >> ___ >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >> privileges > > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
Hi Oz, I already communicated this clearly to merov, but I'll summarize it here: As you can see from https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AgvC7hm5YZqcdHVXb05iTE0wTFc0bWptTW4tOTZuS3c&hl=en&ui=2#gid=0 all my patches larger than one line, being VWR-14914 (SNOW-673) SNOW-84 (SNOW-546), SNOW-103 (SNOW-688), SNOW-240, SNOW-129 (SNOW-670) SNOW-408, SNOW-477, VWR-12984 (SNOW-643) were like .. ignored. Merov ported VWR-14914, and I even helped with two others because my friends started porting it... but basically: I'm not stupid and I try not to make the same mistake twice. Therefore, I won't port my patches to 2.0 (for them to be ignored, again in 3.0 or God knows), certainly not considering that I'm not even using 2.0 (for reasons pointed out by others). So, to answer your question, in order to get me to contribute to 2.0 Linden Lab will have to get their payed coders to port my patches to 2.0 external (not SG, but the real thing), AND fix the UI of 2.0 so it becomes interesting for me to use it instead of 1.x). On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) < o...@lindenlab.com> wrote: > I opened this in the 27 May IW open source meeting, and would like to > invite wider and more specific feedback. > > It's fairly clear that Linden Lab doesn't have the resources to devote > to active work on both Snowglobe 1.x and 2.x, and it's not efficient for > the community as a whole to be splitting effort. > > I'd like to fairly quickly get to the point where all our new work is > happening on the 2.x branch. That said, I understand that might leave > behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some > people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know > is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be > happy with? > > One of my goals is to increase the rate and volume at which Linden Lab > can (and _does_) take changes from the open source base into the > internal code, but unless we can keep everyone on the same branch, that > will be much more difficult. > > Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move > development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source > meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. > > > > To be clear... I don't object to anyone else working on 1.x at all; I'd > just like to know why so that we can tempt them to join us on 2.x > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
> On Friday 28 May 2010 00:50:55 Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: > > Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move > > development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source > > meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. Oz, I think open source developers will naturally spend most of their time working on the viewer they use most. And there are problems with 2.0 that for me are much more insurmountable than just changes to muscle memory: * Modal UI. Enough was said about this already. * Most important for me, I just can't read the fonts in 2.0 without straining. UI Widgets are too big and fonts are too small, for any UI size setting that leaves a bit of 3d-world visible. I guess I am in the minority here (having bad eyesight,) but I think this is a big minority group of existing and potential SL users that would simply write off 2.0 as unusable. Yes, there are improvements in 2.0 as well, but I can't enjoy them. On Friday 28 May 2010 15:45:14 Lance Corrimal wrote: > ... backport the alpha layer / tattoo layer / inventory links / script > info from about land into snowglobe 1.4... 50% of that are already done > anyways, want a patch? Yes please! I wonder, can we flex the rule about contributor agreement for patches backporting code that was originally written by linden lab? -- Thickbrick ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
Am Donnerstag, 27. Mai 2010, 23:50:55 schrieb Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence): > It's fairly clear that Linden Lab doesn't have the resources to devote > to active work on both Snowglobe 1.x and 2.x, and it's not efficient for > the community as a whole to be splitting effort. Like many others so far I'd like to point out that LL has little say about what "the community" thinks to be efficient or not. right now, working on code based on SG1 is efficient; Working on code based on SG2 / viewer-external is trying to hit a moving target that changes faster than april weather in europe. > I'd like to fairly quickly get to the point where all our new work is > happening on the 2.x branch. That said, I understand that might leave > behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some > people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know > is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be > happy with? ... backport the alpha layer / tattoo layer / inventory links / script info from about land into snowglobe 1.4... 50% of that are already done anyways, want a patch? alternatively, have the 2.0 UI redesigned by someone who actually spends time in-world instead of some crooks in odessa who haven't even seen the "create account" page, let alone actual SL. In the same move, claim non-fulfilment of contract and damages from big spaceship for outsourcing their job to someone who was not exactly up to scratch about the matter. > One of my goals is to increase the rate and volume at which Linden Lab > can (and _does_) take changes from the open source base into the > internal code, but unless we can keep everyone on the same branch, that > will be much more difficult. Looking at what's going on on pjira more than once a decade might be a start. > Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move > development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source > meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. the user interface. it is simply BAD. everything that people do is more cumbersome to achieve in SL. try any of the following tasks: - send a group notice with an attachment - create a box on a prim instead of on the ground - change clothes right after you login add the fact that right now, getting a patch to work on 2.0 code is harder than shooting a running deer with a slingshot from 2 miles away while blindfolded... I for one have a perfectly working set of patches against 1.4.x that won't even apply on 2.0 source, and it's not a simple matter of finding the spots where stuff moved around... it's more like, basic concepts are changing every time you grab a new svn checkout. > To be clear... I don't object to anyone else working on 1.x at all; I'd > just like to know why so that we can tempt them to join us on 2.x As long as SG2 / viewer external keeps changing in such huge leaps & bounds I believe that hardly anyone would want to keep reimplementing the same patch over and over several times a day. as a sidenote... is this "let's focus on 2.0" line of thought in any way behind the fact that after 6 weeks I haven't even heard back about my application for the TPV directory? bye, LC ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I could spend a lot of time repeating things, but "what Agent said" fits the bill. The 2 main issues I've been hearing about since the first beta release have been the side bar and notifications. The new notification system is just confusing and disorienting. There is just too much to say about it that I don't have the hours needed to go over it all. The last time I tried to use it I closed a notice for an offline IM after I opened it caused the IM window to be killed and I lost the offline message. I had to dig in to my logs to figure out who it was and what they said. I think that everything that can be said about how unloved the sidebar is, has been said at least 900 times already on the list. > Put the location back in the title bar so the search bar can be hidden > without losing track of where you are. +1, Location should be shown in the upper bar like in 1.x at least when the Location bar is turned off. On 5/27/2010 3:44 PM, Argent Stonecutter wrote: > On 2010-05-27, at 16:50, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: >> I understand that might leave >> behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some >> people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know >> is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be >> happy with? > > Roll back most of the changes to text chat, at a bare minimum fix the > text chat focus problem, but really text chat needs to be in a single > overlay instead of a separate badged pane for each person speaking, > and the text input gadget is at least half the width of the screen. > > Roll back the sidebar, or maybe provide an option to have separate > floaters instead of the sidebar. > > Put the location back in the title bar so the search bar can be hidden > without losing track of where you are. > > I don't know what to do about IMs, I found the combination of IMs and > notices popping up in the lower right corner completely > incomprehensible and uncontrollable. It's frustrating, like the viewer > is going "stuff happened! But I'm not going to let you see it!" > > I can't explain that last part better because I haven't been able to > use 2.0 for long enough to really grok it, because of the vertigo I > get from the sidebar. > > I would like to at least see a Snowglobe 1.4 with the script limit > visibility and clothing layer functionality of 2.0 released before > abandoning 1.x completely. > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL/xfYAAoJEIdLfPRu7qE2LEgH/1Ut3RkBl56Dw7l2J+2nnDv/ T1W9aOxASepHTTwW0/fipFKV7upt5w54VowkFKlXYT+mmxRRAninhna8ZUfvchcD EMNB08mIEiqkzXz8FBphKNbIiLAyqM0w8cSKrfRvWzafTaJ/bOUE0qCt4XUi1TWT RfVYAAeMa2wgr/45rlBj4e8Mpz6AzTNxua1zUeVCSJn0qZ8cG08T1gniUaYVmhzZ 1qUzyCEMIRRf1lIoDkUu4Zh9ecZt3/BV6uevLL6vbMolP8DWLc0zb3DnCb13McFZ Ua1v+sn83orgzH7lM2adQ7AgBevhVXEVkN4PblIMplp6rB7Ox02IeM6k6AkngGE= =gfde -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: > It's fairly clear that Linden Lab doesn't have the resources to devote > to active work on both Snowglobe 1.x and 2.x, and it's not efficient for > the community as a whole to be splitting effort. Snowglobe is an opensource project. Sure Linden Lab can decide not to do anything about 1.x (not that it has done much about it in the past year or so anyway), but you cannot tell the outside contributors what they want to focus on. And most of them still want to improve on SG 1.x. > I'd like to fairly quickly get to the point where all our new work is > happening on the 2.x branch. That said, I understand that might leave > behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some > people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know > is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be > happy with? I'm afraid this is not going to be very easy Oz. It's not likely that a lot of new development is going to go to 2.0 since a lot of people find the UI much more difficult to use. And Linden Lab has in the past few months since the introduction of the new UI only be willing to do minor tweaks to it, nothing of substance. See the JIRA's and mailing list threads about chat bar focus where the response from the head of the viewer team was basically "no can do", complain all you want but that's not changing. With attitude like that from LL the response is not surprising, OK, no we cannot move to 2.0 with such an inflexible approach to fixing most glaring UI issues. > One of my goals is to increase the rate and volume at which Linden Lab > can (and _does_) take changes from the open source base into the > internal code, but unless we can keep everyone on the same branch, that > will be much more difficult. This would be good indeed. It was very sad to see that almost none of bugs that were fixed in SG 1.x tree were taken upstream. Viewer 2.0 was released choke full of bugs (including crashers that could lead to potential exploits) that were fixed moths and months before in the public SG repository. > Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move > development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source > meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. It's UI, the UI and more of UI. While the 2.0 at the first glance looks nice and modern compared to 1.x it's usability is far worse. 1.x UI could be skinned to look much more modern and many TPV already do this. >From what I have seen building from viewer-external branch so far, 2.1 is going to bring only tiny cosmetic changes without addressing the real problems of the UI's usability. SL is a 3d virtual world. 2.0 UI with it's non transparent floaters, inability to dock local chat history with other ongoing conversations, obscures much of the world, making it into a facebook page with a glimpse of something 3d behind it. Local chat changes from 1.x to 2.x also show this facebook fixation of 2.0 design, moved from functional, usable display to something resembling facebook or twitter updates. Try an experiment for yourself, go to a busy club with a lot of chat in 1.x and 2.0 and see the difference. If you get a couple of IM conversation goings + busy local chat, there is hardly any world left to see. Local chat input field is too small even for facebook or twitter style updates. 2.1 makes this even worse by trying to jam more buttons on the same line, so you get chat input, buttons, IM conversation items and notification counts all on one line. Chat is a clear loser there, but guess what, a lot of people come to SL to socialize and talk to each other, so de-emphasizing chat like that isn't going to improve the user experience. At the same time, we have this huge and mostly empty address bar, so the message seem to be, let's make it look like a web browser and heck with usability. Also. the changes of focus handling for local chat between the the two versions show that the designers of 2.0 have never actually used SL for socializing, otherwise they would notice that people start jumping around and doing other weird things because they thought input focus was on the chat line. Inability to open more than one user profile, or to look at a user and group profile at the same time is also very limiting, and makes some common tasks much more difficult. Just compare the list of user groups and the task of opening them and discovering what they're about between the two versions. This is how people discover things about Second Life, open people's profiles, look at their groups, their picks, and go visit those locations. The modal nature of 2.0 interface makes this painful.-> Compare how to do common things, "how do i upload picture of my cat" and share it with friends. In 1.0, it's file -> upload -> image. In 2.0 you have to figure out how to open inventory and that there is a menu in there that allows you to uplo
Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
Basically, I think the group as a whole likes much of what was done, but that making the real changes to the UI itself don't exactly seem a less-than-herculean task. So, if we were to remove the sidebar, will LL keep it gone? If themability gets added, and people spend the time it takes to make a set of really good themes, will LL keep it, or will that viewer be kept on the sidelines as a 3rd party viewer? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not personally interested in working on a TPV that guarantees I'll be banned and ejected by people checking the channel my viewer uses. --GC On 05/27/2010 05:50 PM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: > I opened this in the 27 May IW open source meeting, and would like to > invite wider and more specific feedback. > > It's fairly clear that Linden Lab doesn't have the resources to devote > to active work on both Snowglobe 1.x and 2.x, and it's not efficient for > the community as a whole to be splitting effort. > > I'd like to fairly quickly get to the point where all our new work is > happening on the 2.x branch. That said, I understand that might leave > behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some > people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know > is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be > happy with? > > One of my goals is to increase the rate and volume at which Linden Lab > can (and _does_) take changes from the open source base into the > internal code, but unless we can keep everyone on the same branch, that > will be much more difficult. > > Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move > development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source > meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. > > > > To be clear... I don't object to anyone else working on 1.x at all; I'd > just like to know why so that we can tempt them to join us on 2.x > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
personally.. it has been said before and i completely agree. if i wanted to use a web browser id open firefox. if i want to use a second life client i want to see floaters galore. im not bashing progression... by all means the work that was done on 2.0 is amazing... but for someone who is fluent in 1.2x the 2.x jump is like taking a fish out its bowl and saying walk or die. the entire set up is very confusing. perhaps there is a way to revert all the UI to classic. a debug setting. or different skin. Same functionality, different look. just my 2c On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:30:47 -0400, Dzonatas Sol wrote: > Hi Oz, > > There has been discussion in AWG and other various chat moments of what > could be done. The primary suggestions seems to be able to hide the UI, > but that doesn't mean it needs to be disabled. There is a debug option, > CTRL-ALT-F1, that basically hides the UI, yet the mouse regions are > still sensitive. If the mouse regions weren't sensitive, it would > provide a means to hide the UI and allow other options. > > For an example with the built-in UI hidden and an external UI present, > please see this project: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Dzonatas_Sol/Icesphere > > Since the UI seems to be really the only issue, the above provides a > solution to continue movement to 2.x. > > Enjoy > > > Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: >> I opened this in the 27 May IW open source meeting, and would like to >> invite wider and more specific feedback. >> >> It's fairly clear that Linden Lab doesn't have the resources to devote >> to active work on both Snowglobe 1.x and 2.x, and it's not efficient for >> the community as a whole to be splitting effort. >> >> I'd like to fairly quickly get to the point where all our new work is >> happening on the 2.x branch. That said, I understand that might leave >> behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some >> people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know >> is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be >> happy with? >> >> One of my goals is to increase the rate and volume at which Linden Lab >> can (and _does_) take changes from the open source base into the >> internal code, but unless we can keep everyone on the same branch, that >> will be much more difficult. >> >> Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move >> development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source >> meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. >> >> >> >> To be clear... I don't object to anyone else working on 1.x at all; I'd >> just like to know why so that we can tempt them to join us on 2.x >> >> ___ >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >> privileges >> >> > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
Hi Oz, There has been discussion in AWG and other various chat moments of what could be done. The primary suggestions seems to be able to hide the UI, but that doesn't mean it needs to be disabled. There is a debug option, CTRL-ALT-F1, that basically hides the UI, yet the mouse regions are still sensitive. If the mouse regions weren't sensitive, it would provide a means to hide the UI and allow other options. For an example with the built-in UI hidden and an external UI present, please see this project: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Dzonatas_Sol/Icesphere Since the UI seems to be really the only issue, the above provides a solution to continue movement to 2.x. Enjoy Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: > I opened this in the 27 May IW open source meeting, and would like to > invite wider and more specific feedback. > > It's fairly clear that Linden Lab doesn't have the resources to devote > to active work on both Snowglobe 1.x and 2.x, and it's not efficient for > the community as a whole to be splitting effort. > > I'd like to fairly quickly get to the point where all our new work is > happening on the 2.x branch. That said, I understand that might leave > behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some > people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know > is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be > happy with? > > One of my goals is to increase the rate and volume at which Linden Lab > can (and _does_) take changes from the open source base into the > internal code, but unless we can keep everyone on the same branch, that > will be much more difficult. > > Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move > development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source > meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. > > > > To be clear... I don't object to anyone else working on 1.x at all; I'd > just like to know why so that we can tempt them to join us on 2.x > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges > > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
On 2010-05-27, at 16:50, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: > I understand that might leave > behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some > people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know > is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be > happy with? Roll back most of the changes to text chat, at a bare minimum fix the text chat focus problem, but really text chat needs to be in a single overlay instead of a separate badged pane for each person speaking, and the text input gadget is at least half the width of the screen. Roll back the sidebar, or maybe provide an option to have separate floaters instead of the sidebar. Put the location back in the title bar so the search bar can be hidden without losing track of where you are. I don't know what to do about IMs, I found the combination of IMs and notices popping up in the lower right corner completely incomprehensible and uncontrollable. It's frustrating, like the viewer is going "stuff happened! But I'm not going to let you see it!" I can't explain that last part better because I haven't been able to use 2.0 for long enough to really grok it, because of the vertigo I get from the sidebar. I would like to at least see a Snowglobe 1.4 with the script limit visibility and clothing layer functionality of 2.0 released before abandoning 1.x completely. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
I think the multitude of polls on the subject makes it clear that many, many people just hate the UI but would be perfectly fine back-porting some of the features (web-on-a-prim, tattoos, etc) to 1.x. In fact, when I last used 2.0, I got what we epileptics call an "aura", which is a warning sign that a seizure is coming. I had to close the app and take an extra dose of my medication to avoid the seizure. Therefore, it's just not a possibility for me to use. I realize LL has been working on 2.0's UI, removing the "squish" effect of the sidebar that may have caused many epileptics to report auras or seizures, but I think it would be safer for me to just stay away from 2.0. I would, after all, like to be able to use my driver's license this summer. :| Fred Rookstown On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 17:50 -0400, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: > I opened this in the 27 May IW open source meeting, and would like to > invite wider and more specific feedback. > > It's fairly clear that Linden Lab doesn't have the resources to devote > to active work on both Snowglobe 1.x and 2.x, and it's not efficient for > the community as a whole to be splitting effort. > > I'd like to fairly quickly get to the point where all our new work is > happening on the 2.x branch. That said, I understand that might leave > behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some > people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know > is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be > happy with? > > One of my goals is to increase the rate and volume at which Linden Lab > can (and _does_) take changes from the open source base into the > internal code, but unless we can keep everyone on the same branch, that > will be much more difficult. > > Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move > development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source > meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. > > > > To be clear... I don't object to anyone else working on 1.x at all; I'd > just like to know why so that we can tempt them to join us on 2.x > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
[opensource-dev] Migrating open development focus to 2.x
I opened this in the 27 May IW open source meeting, and would like to invite wider and more specific feedback. It's fairly clear that Linden Lab doesn't have the resources to devote to active work on both Snowglobe 1.x and 2.x, and it's not efficient for the community as a whole to be splitting effort. I'd like to fairly quickly get to the point where all our new work is happening on the 2.x branch. That said, I understand that might leave behind things that the Snowglobe user/dev base wants and that some people are not happy with some elements of 2.x. What I'd like to know is... what needs to happen to make that choice that most people can be happy with? One of my goals is to increase the rate and volume at which Linden Lab can (and _does_) take changes from the open source base into the internal code, but unless we can keep everyone on the same branch, that will be much more difficult. Please respond to this thread with your favorite reasons not to move development to 2.x. We will review the list at the 6 June open source meeting with the goal of setting some priorities. To be clear... I don't object to anyone else working on 1.x at all; I'd just like to know why so that we can tempt them to join us on 2.x ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
