[ODE] 0.8.2 candidate

[Bram Stolk]

Hello Erwin,

The additions would be really neat.
However, I have way too little time for serious commitment to the task.

  Bram


On 9/27/07, erwin at erwincoumans.com <erwin at erwincoumans.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ode.org/pipermail/ode/attachments/20070927/11f8013b/attachment.htm