Hi Nathan,
Your recent commit (r4286) introduced a bug in poll() of the new
"Rigify Dev Tools". It causes an error every time UI is updated:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/home/irie/build/blender2.6/cmake/bin/2.65/scripts/addons/rigify/ui.py", line
206, in poll
return obj.mode
Thanks for the fix Irie!
> Anyway, I don't understand why you did such big changes in Bcon4...
Fair enough. It seemed like the best option of bad options. I'm
currently working with a studio to improve Rigify for their pipeline,
but I have a limited amount of time to be on-site working with the
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Nathan Vegdahl wrote:
> Thanks for the fix Irie!
>
>> Anyway, I don't understand why you did such big changes in Bcon4...
>
> Fair enough. It seemed like the best option of bad options. I'm
> currently working with a studio to improve Rigify for their pipeline,
>
Fair enough.
Rigify is a bit unique among the addons, though, in that it is
designed to be extensible via additional rig types. And this is
coming up here, where the version of Rigify in the official repo and
the version on their local machines with custom extensions conflict.
For this use-case,
> Is there some way that we could rework addon loading such that local
> versions of addons (e.g. in .config/blender/x.x/scripts/addons)
> override and take precedence over official repo versions? That way it
> is easy to have local versions of addons. With a lot of addons that
> might seem point
This question probably has already be discussed, but are there any
plans to implement an addon deployment like mozilla applications
(firefox/thunderbird/seamonkey 2.x) uses where the client (blender)
can just browse a central http://addons.blender.org/ site (or
something) and with a click or two, i
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Nathan Vegdahl wrote:
> Fair enough.
>
> Rigify is a bit unique among the addons, though, in that it is
> designed to be extensible via additional rig types. And this is
> coming up here, where the version of Rigify in the official repo and
> the version on their
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Chad Fraleigh wrote:
> This question probably has already be discussed, but are there any
> plans to implement an addon deployment like mozilla applications
> (firefox/thunderbird/seamonkey 2.x) uses where the client (blender)
> can just browse a central http://add
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Chad Fraleigh wrote:
>> This question probably has already be discussed, but are there any
>> plans to implement an addon deployment like mozilla applications
>> (firefox/thunderbird/seamonkey 2.x) uses whe
As a preliminary step could we have a script to verify the function calls
in each addon are still valid on a daily basis.
Just iterate across every function definition and validate against the
latest repo to check if the variables/structure of the calls are correct?
If any breakages are found sen
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Chad Fraleigh wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Campbell Barton wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Chad Fraleigh wrote:
>>> This question probably has already be discussed, but are there any
>>> plans to implement an addon deployment like mozilla
> Would prefer addon devs don't do this, some do already but it means we
> can't be sure the addon in SVN is really the latest one, have to
> contact devs before release to make sure we pull the latest version
> in, and it won't be tested as much (or not and have older addons in
> which miss featur
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Nathan Vegdahl wrote:
>> Would prefer addon devs don't do this, some do already but it means we
>> can't be sure the addon in SVN is really the latest one, have to
>> contact devs before release to make sure we pull the latest version
>> in, and it won't be tested
>> Consider, for example, someone having two different
>> versions of an external renderer installed, and they want to be able
>> to use either/or in different projects (maybe one is more stable, but
>> the other has more features). I think there are meaningful use-cases
>> outside of Rigify and t
Started a thread on bf-python about supporting multiple versions of the
same addon.
--Nathan
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Nathan Vegdahl wrote:
> >> Consider, for example, someone having two different
> >> versions of an external renderer installed, and they want to be able
> >> to use eit
15 matches
Mail list logo
