Bounty to fix Topo-renaming (poking bears with sticks)

[OldDraftsman]

Anyone interested in getting together a lump of cash to goad the developers into fixing this stupid Topological Naming disaster that is just being perpetuated through each new iteration of FC as features are added; instead of fixing broken things first?

Someone of great trust and respect on the Forums can be the Escrow holder and I am happy to start by throwing in $100.

So, by consensus,
We need an Escrow holder. Not me as no one should ever suggest a plan then be the holder of the cash.
We need the devs interested in participating.
We need a group that can validate participating devs skills to perform the task without adding more problems.
We need that group to select one dev for the work.
We need to define a finite time for the completion of the Topo-naming being solved.
We need to pay out to the dev who does the work and to two or more programmers with the skills and knowledge to check and verify the changes.
We need to define who gets how much each. The guts of the money should go to the dev doing the work, say 70% for the dev and 30% for the checkers to split between themselves.
We probably need a lot more, but this should get it started.

[saso]

realthunder has already implemented some toponaming solution in his asm3 build that has shown to work quite well in some of the tests we did. personally I was hopping it would get split out of the other asm3 code, and so be reviewed and possibly get in to the master before the rest of the asm3, unfortunately this has not happened yet, but you can test it in his FC builds https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD_ ... 3/releases

[OldDraftsman]

Thanks, downloading as I type.

be reviewed and possibly get in to the master before the rest of the asm3, unfortunately that has no happen yet

This is a common problem with community driven and written software. There is no direct leadership and consensus is always a FU at best. Then there are cliques and the list is long.

Oh naive soul that I may be, having started, run and sold two very successful software businesses I think I can speak with some credibility. I think FC have taken this community thing to an extreme degree with all the differing workbenches and now quite a few overlapping.

I am happy to slap down some money if a few others do too. And, by doing so maybe we force some momentary, but solid direction, at least with this crazy constantly error prone naming stuff. So much of what FC could be is being wasted. Autodesk must be laughing out loud daily.

[Kunda1]

Autodesk must be laughing out loud daily.

This is not a very strong taunt to the FC community. I think they could care less.

[chrisb]

I would throw in another 100$.

[Joel_graff]

Autodesk must be laughing out loud daily.

To back Kunda's observation, I can't exactly imagine why we'd care, either.

Nevertheless, a directed effort to address a long-standing problem certainly seems worthwhile.

[bejant]

I can understand your frustration but I take objection to some of what was posted here, so I will address those things and try not to be offensive. Begin with the title of this topic:

Bounty to fix Topo-renaming (poking bears with sticks)

I don't think of any developer as being some type of carnivore, from which a reaction can only be had by annoyance. To me that analogy in the subject title is especially disrespectful and offensive.

Some of the remainder I will have to challenge later

Anyone interested in getting together a lump of cash to goad the developers into fixing this stupid Topological Naming disaster that is just being perpetuated through each new iteration of FC as features are added; instead of fixing broken things first?

Someone of great trust and respect on the Forums can be the Escrow holder and I am happy to start by throwing in $100.

So, by consensus,
We need an Escrow holder. Not me as no one should ever suggest a plan then be the holder of the cash.
We need the devs interested in participating.
We need a group that can validate participating devs skills to perform the task without adding more problems.
We need that group to select one dev for the work.
We need to define a finite time for the completion of the Topo-naming being solved.
We need to pay out to the dev who does the work and to two or more programmers with the skills and knowledge to check and verify the changes.
We need to define who gets how much each. The guts of the money should go to the dev doing the work, say 70% for the dev and 30% for the checkers to split between themselves.
We probably need a lot more, but this should get it started.

because, like all humans, I am limited by time.

[NormandC]

Oh naive soul that I may be, having started, run and sold two very successful software businesses I think I can speak with some credibility.

No. This gives you no credibility, because nobody really knows you. Talk is cheap.

You'll get credibility with actual coding and pull requests.

This is a common problem with community driven and written software. There is no direct leadership

I'll give you this, I really miss Jürgen Riegel, the project's founder - he disappeared a few years back. He had the moral authority to assume the leadership position and resolve development issues.

Apart from that, I will just quote here what I wrote in your help topic.

Solving the topological naming issue in FreeCAD will not be the silver bullet so many of you are expecting.

Here's some very useful reading about another commercial parametric program: https://dezignstuff.com/why-solidworks-needs-a-system/

I've followed Matt Lombard's blog for years because even though I don't use Solidworks, I find his insights often apply to most CAD programs.

Excerpt:

Now we have to talk about Pro/E. Remember Pro/E had a reputation of being difficult to use, and fairly rigid when it came to procedures. Back in the early 90’s, people who taught Pro/E taught some kind of method, or structured procedure. Something like a skeleton model, master model, or references built around planes. It was structured, it was tough to use, people failed to follow the procedures sometimes and made a mess of things. But it worked if you followed the procedure. Models were less likely to lose parent/child relations if you built everything around planes and sketches (like Stoltfus’ SSP method).
(...)
This is the point where all of those people who stopped reading this too-long blog already need to listen extra hard. It turns out that just modeling without any system leads to the chaos that it sounds like it would. There was a reason Pro/E was hard. There was a reason Pro/E users looked derisively down on SW converts. If you have a history-based model with intelligence built in, that intelligence needs to be structured, or it’s just chaos. SolidWorks freed the market by loosening the restraints, damn the chaos. Ease of use as a mantra really gets people’s attention, but discipline is less sexy. Regardless if you do it or not, history-based modeling really needs some structure – rules and procedures.

[chrisb]

I agree with bejant's view. I am in the lucky position that I never had a boss (at least at work, haha) poking me or others with sticks and I don't wish it to anyone.
However, I still think that some fundraising is sensible and there is a huge amount of work to be done integrating one or all of the toponaming approaches, and the amount rises with every additional commit.
Many of us use FreeCAD to their benefit, they enjoy using it, some even use it for professional work. Many people contribute with code or documentation or helping others. Donating is another possibility to help.

Poking with sticks won't, bait with money may help.

[saso]

Just so that those that don't know about it will understand how far realthunder has already developed this in his implementation
https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD_ ... cal-Naming
https://github.com/realthunder/FreeCAD_ ... -Algorithm
https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=27278

And here is also a link to a discussion we had when he started to work on it and can show a bit of a background from what perspective we have tried to attack the problem https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... 10#p215780