Ashley, please respond.

New releases and general discussions.

Post » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:56 pm

I have an idea I'd like to propose to Ashley, David, Rich, and all the third party plugin developers.

I believe it would benefit the developers, and the scirra community as whole, if there was a way for a community member to contribute to the development of construct more directly. An agreed upon method of submitting bugfixes, which can later be reviewed by the devs and utilized as is, edited, or at the very least, used to find the source of a bug.

There can be minimum guidelines for commenting, and of course for the methods of submission.
Any contributions would be submitted with no implied promise of either an acceleration in development, or a response from the developers.

Shviller recently posted a fix to 3d box, and I've found the source of many of the bugs in the 360 plugin, and implemented fixes in the custom controls plugin. It wouldn't surprise me if there are other such unofficial bugfixes.

I think we could lighten the load considerably for the developers, at a time when most of the road to 1.0 is bugfixes. There's a growing number of talented c++ devs in our midst, and I think we can offload alot of the gruntwork.

Anyone's thoughts are appreciated.
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:10 pm

Sounds great to me, especially since the devs currenty seem to be mighty busy.
B
6
S
2
G
3
Posts: 520
Reputation: 2,690

Post » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:14 pm

lucid, sure, it would be great! I am not a programmer at all, but as an user of course I want Construct to be more powerful, more clear as fast as it may be (and who doesn't ? Maybe creators of GM only do :D)

So.. anyway it's up to Construct devs. Hope it's possible.
B
3
G
3
Posts: 29
Reputation: 933

Post » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:50 pm

Well that's the way that open source is supposed to work, although I'm not quite sure what the license status of the default plugs is....I mean since they're a separate entity and all.
Any way something like what they do with the wiki would be good. Like if you want to have access to a special separate cvs you first gotta ask for access.
Image Image
B
161
S
48
G
90
Posts: 7,347
Reputation: 66,749

Post » Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:00 am

This sounds like a good idea to me, I wouldn't mind construct being more stable/fixed quicker!
B
134
S
65
G
16
Posts: 1,765
Reputation: 19,188

Post » Sun Oct 25, 2009 1:33 am

They would have to open up the source and let people access the SVN. There may be a problem with the fact that they use Professional UI libraries and since we do not have access to those libraries we may not be able to compile construct to test our fixes.
B
5
S
2
G
4
Posts: 632
Reputation: 2,829

Post » Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:38 am

I think even just allowing assistance with the plugins currently on the cvs might be helpful.
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:44 pm

EDIT:COPY PASTED TO MOST RECENT POST
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Post » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:45 pm

Please note the following (about the Construct source code proper).

:arrow: If the terms of the Prof-UIS license is stopping you from releasing the entire source code, then this is a violation.
:arrow: You cannot choose to not release source code because it "is messy" or otherwise personally disagreeable. This is also a violation.
B
2
S
2
G
3
Posts: 158
Reputation: 1,566

Post » Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:51 pm

Ashley. I'm sure it isn't intentionally rude, but it comes off that way.

The other plugin developers I've spoken to in chat seem on board.
If the answer is no, please respond as such, instead of ignoring the post completely.


[quote="Sslaxx":dzkydly8]Please note the following (about the Construct source code proper).

:arrow: If the terms of the Prof-UIS license is stopping you from releasing the entire source code, then this is a violation.
:arrow: You cannot choose to not release source code because it "is messy" or otherwise personally disagreeable. This is also a violation.[/quote:dzkydly8]

Personally, I know nothing about the licensing issues. I just want to help the project get back on it's feet.

I don't want dev credits, or a red name tag. I just see this as a way to reduce the workload. I don't want to see construct fade away before 1.0, and I'm not alone in my concern this is the way things are headed.
Spriter Dev
B
87
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,461

Next

Return to Construct Classic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests