Werner Mayer

[adrianinsaval]

qt problem. is there a plan?

what qt problem?

[sgrogan]

People,
Could we give wmayer a little break?
He said he needed time, so why can't we give it to him?

He's identified 90+ tasks, I think that's enough.

[drmacro]

People,
Could we give wmayer a little break?
He said he needed time, so why can't we give it to him?

He's identified 90+ tasks, I think that's enough.

It's tough to be in demand.

[heda]

I'm totally with sgoran on this, let him work in his own pace at his own will and priorities.
am intensely appreciative that he is back, at his own terms, as always!!

There is noone that has put the effort into fc as wm, and we should be careful and protect that.

For me the question is how to create the situation where this 90+ tasks are comfortably distributed to other people as far as it is possible, in parts or whole.

maybe make that list somewhat public, asking for specific support?
or a "blog" on the wiki?

btw, not that I can in this case - but if I where to put my pm hat on, it might be that I would have bluntly said no to merging anything else than smaller preparatory items related to tpn (regardless of all the potential blow-backs in mind) - and would just have gone for a shorter release cycle (say 6 months to a packaged/uploaded version) and put the effort into some quick wins (could of course be horribly wrong on that, but have a feeling anything related to tpn is not a quick win in terms of code/merging). That effort could hopefully be concerted to some key points on wm's list that others could pitch in on.

[M4x]

Glad you're alright - that's the only important thing.

[wsteffe]

The plan is to get it merged before the next release.

But it may not be just a matter of time. If we all agree that TN is a good think to have but the current PR can not be yet merged, there should be an impediment. What is it and how do you think that it will be removed before the next release ?

[thomas-neemann]

what qt problem?

here it is

https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=48906

[chrisb]

If we all agree that TN is a good think to have but the current PR can not be yet merged, there should be an impediment. What is it and how do you think that it will be removed before the next release ?

It has been stated often enough: Werner can have all the support he wants. He just has to ask for it. Something he has already asked for, is to test the realthunder version.

[thomas-neemann]

.... Werner can have all the support he wants. He just has to ask for it. Something he has already asked for, is to test the realthunder version.

@wmayer


I've gathered something here. is that helpful?


https://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic. ... es#p520615

[wsteffe]

Something he has already asked for, is to test the realthunder version.

I know that but the problem with the current TopoNaming PR is that there isn't much to test with it. It is just a basic infrastructure aimed to support next TopoNaming related PR (Scketch and Part Design).You can't do anything new with it.
You may only check that it doesn't break preexisting functions and I think that yorikvanhavre and others have already verified that the PR doesn't bring any substantial regression. In fact it was also approved by yorikvanhavre. The real TopoNaming tests will start with the next PRs after the current one has been merged.

Of course the TopoNaming can be fully tested with the LinkDaily branch (which I have just started to use), but this has many differences with respect to the Master and I do not think that it is a good platform to validate the TopoNaming part alone.