PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post here if you have re-based and finalised code to integrate into master, which was discussed, agreed to and tested in other forums. You can also submit your PR directly on github.
User avatar
jhaand
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:22 pm
Location: Venlo, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post by jhaand »

Thank you for the elaborate reply on the 0.20 plan and implecations.

So a 0.20 release this year would make sense. (Although Debian hasn't even started packaging that version yet for their unstable repositories. As with the release of OpenCascade 7.6.0. FreeCAD doesn't want to remain left behind with that one either. If FreeCAD release managers want to do the release of 0.20 in 22Q1, then I would fully support that.

But making sure to finally solve the topological naming problem would before 0.21 should then get some attention.

If I see how the UI for RealThunder looks like with all the new bells and whistles, I think the main release needs to catch up. Or there might be bigger forks ahead.
User avatar
Kunda1
Veteran
Posts: 12997
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post by Kunda1 »

jhaand wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 4:30 pm Thank you for the elaborate reply on the 0.20 plan and implecations.
Again, that's my take. Not speaking for the project or the devs.
jhaand wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 4:30 pm If I see how the UI for RealThunder looks like with all the new bells and whistles, I think the main release needs to catch up. Or there might be bigger forks ahead.
realthunder is a development beast (that's a compliment). His pace is break-neck speed. He knows this. But FC master goes slower although, FC master is moving pretty fast in the last several months, I'm not sure people comprehend this (because they are purely comparing development between Link and Master).

Anyway, I'm not sure we can have it both ways, Toponaming + other Link features simultaneously ported to master. It's a lot to ask of Realthunder + wmayer and the other devs working on master. Realthunder may be able to swing it but the bottleneck is going to be master (there is already precedent for this in the GH issue queue - at the time of writing this post, there are several old realthunder PRs still open). We also have to respect the veteran users of FreeCAD. Not all of them want all of realthunder's UI decisions. So we need to discuss strategies for what is optional and what is default.

But I digress, this thread is about Toponaming.

Probably the next step, is to get very clear (with the help of realthunder and some of the core devs) on a way forward with Toponaming (given again, that @realthunder in his FOSDEM 2022 talk (collaborated with @oficinerobotica) has said he is open to simplifying the Toponaming port even further).

What is fortunate now, is that we will be moving from the mantis bugtracker to github issue queue tomorrow. We can then leverage the Github Projects feature to organize the toponaming merge.
Alone you go faster. Together we go farther
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
#lowhangingfruit | Use the Source, Luke. | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report FC bugs and features
adrianinsaval
Veteran
Posts: 3539
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post by adrianinsaval »

Kunda1 wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:27 pm It's Feb 2022, v0.19 was released March 20, 2021 (we're coming up on 1 year anniversary)
The average release cycle for FC is 1 year...exceptions v0.17, 0.13, 0.7, 0.2
let's not forget that 0.19 took 2 years ;)
but I agree it would be nice to tie thigns up a little and proceed with a 0.20 release, waiting for TN merge to happen isn't worth it IMO, it's clearly not going to happen soon and we can't wait forever for it. Still, I don't think FreeCAD is ready to release 0.20 yet, there are some developments going on in PD and sketcher that might be worth waiting for (and who knows what other things in other workbenches)
User avatar
Kunda1
Veteran
Posts: 12997
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:03 pm

Re: PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post by Kunda1 »

adrianinsaval wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 7:46 pm let's not forget that 0.19 took 2 years ;)
lol, i meant to say that...but omitted accidentaly :facepalm:
adrianinsaval wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 7:46 pm but I agree it would be nice to tie thigns up a little and proceed with a 0.20 release, waiting for TN merge to happen isn't worth it IMO, it's clearly not going to happen soon and we can't wait forever for it. Still, I don't think FreeCAD is ready to release 0.20 yet, there are some developments going on in PD and sketcher that might be worth waiting for (and who knows what other things in other workbenches)
If you look how we're been backporting fixes to 0.19 in this cycle, I think we can consider addressing pending PD and Sketcher issues in point releases. I vote to release as soon as we can. Decide on a feature freeze, ping the translators, fix up documentation... and "let 'er rip"

Edit: IOW, I think we'd be backporting a lot more in the v0.20 release since we don't have the python2/qt4 issue and other limiting dependencies that we had in 0.19

Edit2: Also we're backporting a lot more now that we have several wonderful devs that have been working incredibly diligently to pick up the slack.
Alone you go faster. Together we go farther
Please mark thread [Solved]
Want to contribute back to FC? Checkout:
#lowhangingfruit | Use the Source, Luke. | How to Help FreeCAD | How to report FC bugs and features
User avatar
yorik
Founder
Posts: 12928
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:16 pm
Location: Brussels
Contact:

Re: PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post by yorik »

I'd be in favour of doing a 0.20 release before TPN too.

Regarding TPN, and what people can do to help, here are a couple of ideas:

Obviously at the moment you need to be able to compile FreeCAD. (it's not hard if you are on linux ;) ). Then, please compile the TPN pull request branch, and test. Testing basically means things like: Go on using FreeCAD the way you're used to. Try everything, specially sketches (since TPN concerns mostly sketches), and try to use sketches in other workbenches and addons. Try to make possible problems appear. Try to "break" things. Try to reopen files produces with the TPN branch on your "standard" FreeCAD. See if there are differences (file size, loading time,...) Try opening old files on the TPN build. Read the text on the PR, and see what @Realthunder indicates that can be tested, and try that, and try to break it.

A further step we could do is indeed to provide builds of the TPN branch so people can help doing the test part without having to compile... Let's try to organize that?
C_h_o_p_i_n
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:14 pm

Re: PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post by C_h_o_p_i_n »

A further step we could do is indeed to provide builds of the TPN branch so people can help doing the test part without having to compile... Let's try to organize that?
This would be very helpful.

While I would like to use/test TNP Branch and report problems.
Setting up an own build/compile enviroment would mean to me to establish another Hobby within another hobby ... :|

Regards,
Stefan
User avatar
jhaand
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:22 pm
Location: Venlo, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post by jhaand »

C_h_o_p_i_n wrote: Mon Feb 07, 2022 1:59 pm
A further step we could do is indeed to provide builds of the TPN branch so people can help doing the test part without having to compile... Let's try to organize that?
This would be very helpful.

While I would like to use/test TNP Branch and report problems.
Setting up an own build/compile enviroment would mean to me to establish another Hobby within another hobby ... :|

Regards,
Stefan
I think the appimg images that are available for other releases will work great for this. Because not every distro will have all the required libraries already available. (Like for instance OpenCascade 7.6.0. (Will that get into the 0.20 release?))
wsteffe
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post by wsteffe »

But what do you want to test ?

It has been said several times that the current PR doesn't add any new feature but just a basic infrastructure aimed to support following TN related PRs.
So there isn't much to test apart seeing that it doesn't introduce any substantial regression. But this was already checked.

The point is: the PR has to be merged or not ? I have understood that the main developers (those which have the last say) simply do not want to merge it. It is a perfectly legitimate decision, but please do not fool around.

The users should know that this PR will never go into master so that they may decide to use the RT branch if they want a solution (not perfect one but anyway a solution) to the TN problem.
C_h_o_p_i_n
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:14 pm

Re: PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post by C_h_o_p_i_n »

In my humble opinon ... :

As time goes by, more and more user will use Link branch because the dont want to deal with the hassle, master provides by the TNP.
Just because there is no real cause to not use a branch where TNP is no such big deal any more and removing the "single solid per Body" limitation in PD.

Not merging the solution provided by RT for the TNP for such a long time ... remembers me somewhat onto a film: "Pride & Prejudice".
My 2 ct from my "user" point of view.

Regards,
Stefan
Last edited by C_h_o_p_i_n on Wed Feb 09, 2022 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ggcode
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 1:50 pm
Location: nähe Bodensee

Re: PR #4752 Topological Naming

Post by ggcode »

C_h_o_p_i_n wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:20 am In my humble opinon ... :

As time goes by, more and more user will use Link branch because the dont want to deal with the hassle, master provides by the TNP.
Just because there is no real cause to not use a branch where TNP is no such big deal any more and removing the "one Body" limitation in PD.

Not merging the solution provided by RT for the TNP for such a long time ... remembers me somewhat onto a film: "Pride & Prejudice".
My 2 ct from my "user" point of view.

Regards,
Stefan
But remember that is only the user view there are much other views. I think the developers certainly have their reasons, it's not a plug and play game .....

regards
Gerhard
Post Reply