Cleaning up art assets

[Tels]

This thread is just a gathering place (Edit: and a reminder) for things that should be removed [Edit: from the final release package) due to copyright issues:

 

* Presumable the D3 buggy files use for the vehicle test map under models/md5/vehicles/buggy/

* the old horse models/md5/chars/animals/horse/ ?

 

Are there others?

[sparhawk]

Huh?!? Why should a D3 original file go???? If we don't need it ok, but copyright reason?

 

The horse is of course a different thing.

[greebo]

Yes, the buggy is fine, as long as it comes straight from the original D3 game.

[Springheel]

Copyright is not a problem, but we still want to remove it before release. We probably don't want a high-tech moon buggy entity in TDM.

[greebo]

Well, I figured it can stay in SVN, but we won't release it as it is. Tels has been very adamant about these things not getting released, but I hope this didn't imply that we should remove everything not release-able from SVN.

 

Unless we're talking about a "release" branch. We could maintain a separate branch where only the stable stuff goes in (which ideally should be the trunk anyway, next to the development branch).

[Springheel]

Oh, I'm certainly not on the "remove anything not used in a map" train. But the buggy is an admitted placeholder, and we may not have a better one by the time release comes along, so I would put it in the "only partially finished feature" category. Those kinds of things, like AI that aren't properly animated, should probably not be released in TDM1.0.

[Tels]

Well, I figured it can stay in SVN, but we won't release it as it is. Tels has been very adamant about these things not getting released, but I hope this didn't imply that we should remove everything not release-able from SVN.

 

Unless we're talking about a "release" branch. We could maintain a separate branch where only the stable stuff goes in (which ideally should be the trunk anyway, next to the development branch).

 

* Well, if we only release things that are explicitely/implicitely included, then the bugyy can stay on SVN, we simple won't package it up.

* If we don't do it that way, instead do the way the majority seemed to favour and overrule me, e.g. just add whole subdirectories, then the buggy should be removed

 

I am still in favour of #1, but this thread is just a reminder that we don't forget things in case we go with option #2.

 

Hope that clears this up.

[greebo]

The SVN repositories are our main development and collaboration storage. We must be able to put half-working stuff into SVN.

 

If we choose to form a release by "cleaning" the SVN repository, we need separate branches: a trunk, which is considered the "release form" of the mod, clean and working, plus a development branch, where all things can live and grow. This comes with the cost of having to carefully merge stuff from one branch to the other, of course.

 

I'm not advocating that we decide on any specific solution right here and now, but I strongly vote against removing stuff from SVN at his point in time, unless it's outright broken and is never ever going to be used again (also for development).

[Tels]

The SVN repositories are our main development and collaboration storage. We must be able to put half-working stuff into SVN.

 

If we choose to form a release by "cleaning" the SVN repository, we need separate branches: a trunk, which is considered the "release form" of the mod, clean and working, plus a development branch, where all things can live and grow. This comes with the cost of having to carefully merge stuff from one branch to the other, of course.

 

That's why I am advocating the "build a package from the main trunk by specifying (automatically) which things go into the package".

 

The sep. branches for SL already caused quite a bit confusion, so we should (if we even want to do a branch) do this not too early. (e.g not now

 

I'm not advocating that we decide on any specific solution right here and now, but I strongly vote against removing stuff from SVN at his point in time, unless it's outright broken and is never ever going to be used again (also for development).

 

That's what I am saying, too. Note that I said this thread is a "reminder", not a "call for action in 5 minutes".

 

if you want, you can ignore this entire thread for the next 5 months

[sparhawk]

I'm definitely for a seperate packacking process as opposed to a release branch. Merging is painfull and prone to errors, and using a package script gives much more control over that even if you want to test different configurations.

[Ishtvan]

The buggy model was either ingame already or it came with the SDK download, so there shouldn't be any copyright violations there. On the one hand it seems silly to release a sci-fi buggy, on the other hand, if the horse & buggy code works and it's just missing models and animations, it might be beneficial to future FM authors willing to make their own models & animations if we put in a tutorial map with placeholder buggies and horses (maybe a Belcher if we don't get a non-stolen horse animated by then).