[ODE] 0.8.2 candidate

[erwin@erwincoumans.com]

Hi, 

It would be a pity if ODE 1.0 doesn't support convex polyhedra. Bram, do you 
have time to help me (build system stuff etc) to integrate Bullet collision 
detection? 

It would give you proper cylinder vs cylinder, apart from convex vs 
anything. 

Thanks,
Erwin 


Bram Stolk writes: 

> On 9/27/07, Jon Watte (ODE) <hplus-ode at mindcontrol.org> wrote:
>>
>> I think 0.9 is fine. We could then focus on filling in the blanks for
>> 1.0, and getting a 1.0 out the door. Given that ODE is, what, 15 years
>> old now, it might be time :-)
>  
> 
> 
> Sure... In my opinion, the biggest blank now is cyl-vs-cyl, which is a hard
> problem.
> Filling in that blank will be a challenge :-) 
> 
> LR, using capsule substitution will not work for short cylinders (like
> coins) at all. 
> 
>   bram 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>>
>>           / h+ 
>>
>>
>> Bram Stolk wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 9/27/07, *Jason Perkins* <starkos at gmail.com
>> > <mailto:starkos at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On 9/27/07, Bram Stolk <b.stolk at gmail.com
>> >     <mailto:b.stolk at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >     > We need to release a candidate for 0.8.2
>> >
>> >     I will get to it ASAP, and I will label it 0.8.2...but I'm going to
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks mate.
>> >
>> >     let you handle all of the inevitable "where's 0.8.1?" questions.
>> :)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Sure thing.
>> > After I have answered it 3 times in this list, I will make it a faq.
>> > Let's see if it gets to be a faq  entry :-)
>> >
>> >
>> >     I realize version numbers are more or less arbitrary, but is there
>> >     some rationale behind adding another digit instead of going to 0.9?
>> >     (0.5 -> 0.6 -> 0.7 -> 0.8 -> 0.8.2 ??)
>> >
>> >
>> > Well, the rationale is that it leaves us some space to 1.0 ?
>> > We can go to 0.9 if you prefer that.
>> > The long list of changes may warrant a higher bump in version?
>> >
>> > 1.0 sounds like a good version nr for a really stable, proven and
>> > established release.
>> > 2.0 would be the thing to use once we break API compatibility.
>> > Did ODE ever break API compatibility before? If we do, we get to clean
>> > up this ugly convention of adding a '2' to several functions if they
>> > behave slightly different. Yuck!
>> >
>> >   bram
>> >
>> >
>> >     Jason
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Zapp: Captain's log, stardate...er..
>> > Kif: Ohhh. April 13th.
>> > Zapp: April 13th. Point 2.
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ODE mailing list
>> > ODE at ode.org
>> > http://ode.org/mailman/listinfo/ode 
>>
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> Zapp: Captain's log, stardate...er..
> Kif: Ohhh. April 13th.
> Zapp: April 13th. Point 2.