FreeCAD Forum

chrisb wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:42 pm The automatic numbering scheme has changed and I am sure there is good reason for that.

I assume it is because it has changed in OCC. FreeCAD doesn't generate the numbering.

chrisb wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:42 pm Provide an extra migration program/workbench/macro - if possible after all - which lifts old models to 0.19.

It's in possession of realthunder: download old asm3 build with toponaming and occ, recompute, download new build of asm3, open, recompute, resave. Open in new FreeCAD, maybe it will be good then.

wandererfan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:05 pm I'm more comfortable with Werner's March/April/May estimate that I am with "well in advance of February 27".

Sounds like Werner and Yorik are tight for time for the rest of 2019, so that works again February too.

I think a February freeze definitely works but we would have to accept that some nifty things will be left for the next version. In the particular case of TechDraw I think it already has a ton of features in 0.19 compared to 0.18, so it already has enough new content for this release.

As for the other workbenches, I think we just have to make a decision and set a soft freeze to keep the program as stable as possible starting from January.

My 2cents, FWIW, I think it's in our interest from a community support standpoint (addressing user issues on the forum) to try to get the latest FC in to Debian/Ubuntu, if possible. And when needed make minor releases just as we did with 0.18.x

Werner doesn't sound like he wants to rush things. However, I agree that it would make sense to include 0.19 in Ubuntu 20.04.

On my desktop I have four DIN A4 pages full of smaller and bigger issues and some of them are serious design flaws that must be fixed before the next release. So, I will fix the issues in the order of their importance and then we can see where we are at the beginning of next year.

But when we really try to make a release in early 2020 then no major change can be merged any more after around mid of December or so. I am just saying because it also was in the discussion that realthunder's topo naming implementation may find its way into v0.19.

DeepSOIC wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:06 pm

chrisb wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:42 pm The automatic numbering scheme has changed and I am sure there is good reason for that.

I assume it is because it has changed in OCC. FreeCAD doesn't generate the numbering.

You are right, and thus it is not relevant for 0.19. The change has already been during the 0.18 development cycle.

wmayer wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:43 pm ...
But when we really try to make a release in early 2020 then no major change can be merged any more after around mid of December or so. I am just saying because it also was in the discussion that realthunder's topo naming implementation may find its way into v0.19.

I think this is fair.

In that case, I vote to postpone the toponaming solution to 0.20. So, one more year of the topological naming problem, and after that, hopefully it is solved. We can be patient with this because we have already managed all this time. Moreover, many users already have experience avoiding the topological naming problems so they will be fine. We should inform realthunder, so that he focuses his efforts on the current code and doesn't go crazy trying to push a huge pull request before the feature freeze.

I really think it would be good to release 0.19 in the long term support version particularly because of two reasons: it has a much improved TechDraw, and because it supports Assembly4, installable from the Addon Manager. Users will test App::Link through Assembly4 and that will be very helpful to find problems. Hopefully realthunder can release Assembly3 as well to do the same.

Dear (and awesome) freecad contributors.
Although i am not in the arcanic beehive of the development process happening backstage, I'd like to tell you from a user's point of view: it's perfectly okay to leave toponaming to a next release as vocx aptly suggests.
This is a game changer and therefore applies the saying "better do it right than do it fast". Give realthunder the time to cement and ironclad his MVP status.

Do I (we?) wish we had this already and solid assembly to boot? Yes. Is it worth putting more stress on contributors? I would say no.

Keep doing what you're doing. The 0.19 pre has had a lot of traction in our humble company already and I'm sure the release will be just fantastic. In the meantime I'll keep spreading the word.

Thank you!

I also agree with Werner and vote for an early feature freeze to ensure all power concentrates on stability of the release.
In addition i also i agree to make .20 the toponaming solution version , 0.19 from my point has a major stepup into this direction and we see a light at the horizon , which is enough for this year.

I vote for merging toponame after 0.19. FEM has not seen big updates for a while. It will be fine with release early 2020. Means IMHO we should go for 0.19 in early 2020.

But we should NOT go for 0.20 we should go for 0.91 after 0.19 But that is another story and another topic.

vocx wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:43 pm I really think it would be good to release 0.19 in the long term support version particularly because of two reasons: it has a much improved TechDraw, and because it supports Assembly4, installable from the Addon Manager. Users will test App::Link through Assembly4 and that will be very helpful to find problems. Hopefully realthunder can release Assembly3 as well to do the same.

IMHO, Assembly4 is Just Great! In my experience, it's possible to largely avoid the toponaming problem by constructing the model by excessive use of LCS:s, which are not affected by the toponaming problem at all. Then, any toponaming problems will be quite local to small pieces of the model, and generally easy to fix. Also, putting all bodies in their own files linked together by Assembly4 greatly isolates any problems. Thus, the links+Assembly4 combination already helps a ton with the toponaming problem.

Also, as you said, the new TechDraw is indeed an incredible ipmrovement over the older one.

I'm not sure, but I'd think, that getting v0.19 in its current form to the next Ubuntu would be important for users that use the distribution-packed version of FreeCAD.