realthunder wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:14 pm
saso wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:33 pm
do we really need link groups?
LinkGroup is just a use case of the Link extension, which contains special logic to deal with group, because it must support linking to a group object.
what is the use-case for linking to a group object ? Would it simplify things if this went away ?
Another big thing left out is the topo naming. If the Link can be merged in time, I'll follow it with the topo naming PR, and hopefully get it into 0.19 as well.
I could imagine that the toponaming should be first, even before App::Link. As well as your improvements for STEP import/export. This might make for a "fast
" 0.19 with your improvements, and would allow 0.20 to contain App::Link. From a "political
" perspective this could be preferable, rather than merging for 0.19 all the App::Link stuff and its 50 000 lines, to avoid the fear of re-creating the PartDesign fiasco.
So my proposal would rather be:
1) make PR for topo-naming
2) make PR for STEP import/export
3) make PR for various other improvements you made
4) go for 0.19, which could drop Python2 and QT4 support
5) target PR for App::Link with 0.20 goal, leaving more time for review