[ODE] some quick notes on 0.6...

[Rodrigo Hernandez]

Well, there is one single reason I (and others) think ODE should not be 
part of a distribution, and that is the dual library aproach.
which one should you distribute? double or single precision? both? if 
you decide for either, some will require the other, if you go for both, 
then we need to decide on how will we be distinguishing them, make build 
changes and so on, this isnt imposible, and maybe not hard, but not 
exactly easy.

Which brings me to a point I wanted to present for a while.
I think we should standarize the function names so that there is a 
single library with single and double precision calls, much
like OpenGL "f" and "d" suffixes, just throwing the idea into the air here.

As for 1.0, I dont see it as just a label, I think once 1.0 is reached, 
the library would be a full feature library with a stable, standarized 
API, 1.1 being backward compatible with it and so on, this is just my 
opinion though.

Terry L. Triplett wrote:

> No comment on the rest of the critical commentary which seems a little 
> strong.
>
> On 6/22/06, *Rodrigo Hernandez* <kwizatz at aeongames.com 
> <mailto:kwizatz at aeongames.com>> wrote:
>
>     Although its true that the primitive is work in progress, ODE is
>     still
>     on a beta stage, hell, its not even suposed to be part of a Linux
>     distribution, if we were to make 0.6 a completelly stable full-feature
>     library, we would still be trying to get it out of the door.
>
>
> Just a comment on this particular bit.  ODE *is* out the door - "beta" 
> or not (though I'm not seeing much indication that ODE is "beta", 
> considering it's well respected, used in commercial games and has a 
> solid community). 
>
> Linux distributions support the distinction between mutltiple levels 
> of stability, so the fact that ODE might be made available as a 
> package for linux distributions should not be a major point of 
> contention.  If assigned the appropriate status (unstable at present), 
> ODE can be made available to Linux users via their distributions while 
> still giving some idea of the developmental stage of the library.  
> Expanding publicity by creating packages for Linux distros is not 
> necessarily a bad thing - it may attract more ODE developers that can 
> bring focus on the areas that need work.
>
> In the larger sense, maybe ODE needs to rethink how development goals 
> are viewed and communicated,  because clearly some parts are very 
> stable while other areas are experimental/unstable.  Is the 
> development strategy really to target a magical " 1.0" release where 
> everything is perfect and complete?  Most people these days understand 
> this to be more of a marketing technique rather than a true assessment 
> of maturity and completeness.  Real libraries that are actually used 
> by actual developers constantly evolve to meet the needs of the times.
>
> Seems to me that a more reasonable approach is to take the long view, 
> realizing that development is never really finished, and give clear 
> indication with each ODE release which parts are stable and which 
> parts are not.  Forget about 1.0 - just release updates as major 
> milestones are reached and be clear about the areas that need 
> attention.  Target features/areas of functionality that need 
> stabilizing, not magic numbers.  The former provides a way to 
> communicate to potential contributors which areas they could 
> contribute to, the latter doesn't communicate much at all.