Hi Nyx and list,
I (finally) realized that there IS something that would
be a great improvement of wearables that won't be too hard
to implement :).
I don't have a solution (yet), but let me describe the
problem, and maybe the list can come up with the solution.
I store wearables in folders, and
Just wanted to propose this as possible work flow for your task, only to
notice that it's already there:
1. Select the (maybe already worn) 'naked' folder
2. Hold down *Ctrl* and click the 'swim outfit' folder to add it to
the selection
3. Right click one of the selected folders and
> This method as several disadvantages: it's a lot of work, I
> have to find back the folder outfit that I'm currently
> wearing, there is the danger that I accidently click 'replace
> outfit' in the last step and it causes often two or three
> rebakes instead of one.
>
> What I'd like is an i
I like this idea!
To translate it back to it's purest abstract form,
we would like to be able to construct outfits in
an object oriented way: be able to derive an outfit
from other outfits.
The "folder link" would be a pointer to the "base class"
so to speak.
However, we have to solve the follow
Anyone seeing this 100%, please email me your complete
~/.secondlife/logs/SecondLife.log for a crashed session.
Thanks!
Lance Corrimal wrote:
> I'm having a similar experience here.
>
> Am Sonntag 28 März 2010 schrieb Jonathan Irvin:
>> Approx. how long into your session does it crash?
>
> a fe
(*) When both folders contain attachments, you'll get a message "Cannot
complete attachments. An attachment is pending for that spot", even if they
have different attachment points, and only attachments from one folder are
actually attached.
Interestingly, when selecting just multiple attachmen
On your system it's trying to load 103 system fonts for full unicode
coverage (on my system it's 43 fonts, which also seems huge so I
never dreamed of testing with 100+).
Not a huge problem in itself, but the current font system is hugely
wasteful of resources and Linux's font autoprobing can retur
I might be wrong, but doesn't Viewer 2 already cover some the things you
want? Creating links to other outfits, and putting them all in the new
outfit folder(not sure what it is called, atm). It does put everything
together, so if you buy new hair you would have to redo them, I think.
On Mon, Mar
Hi,
i guess on my system it's the "loads of fonts" problem described in
another thread, I _do_ have an awful lot of fonts installed here.
bye,
LC
Am Montag 29 März 2010 schrieb Tofu Linden:
> Anyone seeing this 100%, please email me your complete
> ~/.secondlife/logs/SecondLife.log for a crash
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:58:30 +0100
Tofu Linden wrote:
> On your system it's trying to load 103 system fonts for full unicode
> coverage (on my system it's 43 fonts, which also seems huge so I
> never dreamed of testing with 100+).
> Not a huge problem in itself, but the current font system is hug
Forums for discussing multi-wearables and related issues can be found
here:
https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/forums/open-source/open-development/multi-wearables
Please re-direct all multi-wearables related conversations there - I'd
like to keep all discussion centralized so everyone knows
Added a preliminary patch for 2.0 to
http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-5063 ("Cannot attach multiple objects
via wear") if anyone wants to look it over :).
I tried to avoid actually handling bridge-specific actions in LLFolderView
this time:
- LLFolderView::doToSelected() groups all selected
Oh, wow. I guess I'll be remembering this one. I had no idea on it.
--GC
On 03/29/2010 02:44 PM, Tayra Dagostino wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:58:30 +0100
> Tofu Linden wrote:
>
>
>> On your system it's trying to load 103 system fonts for full unicode
>> coverage (on my system it's 43 font
In this note I'll identify 3 simple scenarios in which TPV developers can
retain some confidence that the "NO WARRANTY" clauses of their open licenses
remain intact. This is a technical reading of GPLv2 and similar licenses
which developers can verify for themselves, rather than a legal reading of
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Joel Foner wrote:
> This is a pretty generic question, but I hope it will be helpful.
>
> Under what conditions might it be possible to do a fairly quick to
> release version and then iterate the feature behavior towards
> something more sophisticated, withou
I thought the TPV policy went into effect on April 30?
Maya
Morgaine wrote:
> In this note I'll identify 3 simple scenarios in which TPV developers
> can retain some confidence that the "NO WARRANTY" clauses of their
> open licenses remain intact. This is a technical reading of GPLv2 and
> si
Small correction here, according to the FAQ the commencement date of TPV is 30
April, so one more month from now on.
- Original Message -
From: Morgaine
To: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Cc: Boy Lane ; Ryan McDougall
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:36 AM
Subject: A n
Thanks Maya, and Boy!
I'm very glad to hear that there is still a month to go.
In that case one can still live in hope that LL might reconsider and rewrite
the policy into something reasonable and unambiguously GPL-compliant for SL
TPV developers. There's still time.
Morgaine.
===
Hi,
We've been moving along turning the export script on. After a couple of
issues of various nature (Linux build, upload to S3, creation of asset URLs
usable externally), we now have a working auto export and commit script for
the vendor branch! Yeah!
Since we also wanted something consistent (a
Thank you for the heads up Morgaine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if
the "no warranty" clause vanishes from the source code, then does that
mean that LL guarantees that the code of the original viewer is bug-
free ? We can't guarantee it as open source programmers if the
original devs don't
20 matches
Mail list logo
