easyw-fc wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:37 pm
I don't see any issue in publish a new stable release and then go to the wild in the next 0.19...
No rush, 0.19 is fine by me. Not that i have any say in the matter. I just dont want this to fall out of sync with master and then collect dust and be forgotten.
My reason for pushing this is that i will start to work on my workbench based on asm3 this fall and would personally prefer a merge before then.
easyw-fc wrote: ↑Mon Aug 13, 2018 6:37 pm
I don't see any issue in publish a new stable release and then go to the wild in the next 0.19... that was a suggested option some time ago anyway...
Actually, I prefer this option, too. The changes in my fork is substantial. Merging now will inevitably delay release of 0.18 for who knows how long. Splitting the changes cost time, and risk new bugs, and worse, incomplete features.
As for releasing FreeCAD 0.17 and starting the FreeCAD 0.18 development cycle. I somehow doubt this will happen before the end of the year. That at least is the current plan established a while back.
P.S. Usually the time frame takes an additional month or two of the next years. Depending on the number of oppressing issues still opened.
triplus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 5:51 am
As for releasing FreeCAD 0.17 and starting the FreeCAD 0.18 development cycle. I somehow doubt this will happen before the end of the year. That at least is the current plan established a while back.
P.S. Usually the time frame takes an additional month or two of the next years. Depending on the number of oppressing issues still opened.
this case is really different because till now FC0.18 has introduced most fixes and improvements without big additions... I think the release process could be quite fast then, as it was suggested already in a past thread
I personally feel that if we do a release annually and stick to set dates. That is always better compared to endless (and fruitless) debates about when it is the best time to do a release. In addition having a stable release time frame enables all developers and end users to plan ahead. Therefore in short if Links effort should be merged as a whole and that should happen in the next development cycle. That likely comes down to Q1/2019 or after.
But said that if general agreement will be gathered to do it differently. And it gets decided Links (branch) effort should be merged as a whole and it is justified to bend a release plan for it. I don't have problems with that. Anyway i tried but i don't feel the suggested core Links related PR strategy was accepted ATM. As a sensible strategy on how to try to tackle this and to move things forward. Therefore i guess indeed best to wait for Werner to say what he feels and work with that after.
Hi to all, would someone of you FEM experts please have a test and give some feedback on usability of Assembly3 branch?
EDIT: Is A3 branch usable to work with FEM as the master FC branch? Or is there any bug introduced? /EDIT
That would help in make the merging easier...
Thx a lot!
Maurice
Last edited by easyw-fc on Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jee-Bee wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:15 pm
I don't think they use it quite often most of the FEM guys are achitectical ...
Yes, I know... Maybe I was not clear ... I would like to know if A3 is breaking FEM functionality. They would need to try their jobs using A3 branch instead of standard FC master.
Just to clarify, you mean that LinkStage3 should be tested by FEM users. Not asm3 that is a python workbench for LinkStage3 that is the actual fork of freecad ^_^
