Removing Image wb

Have some feature requests, feedback, cool stuff to share, or want to know where FreeCAD is going? This is the place.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Read the FreeCAD code of conduct!
User avatar
adrianinsaval
Veteran
Posts: 5534
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: Removing Image wb

Post by adrianinsaval »

But it is in the coding stage, we have a starting PR already, it's already decided the WB will be removed, it seems the consensus is to have a task dialog when in edit mode for the scaling and placement functionality, no independent command for inserting an image plane is required since it can be done just through import. Werner is moving the independent MDI view to a command in the tools menu so not even the niche cases for that use are left behind.
GeneFC wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:58 pm Just what that function should include is the current topic of discussion.
And that is an implementation detail... Basically what's up for debate is the exact content of the task dialog. You might not like GitHub's UX but be understanding of devs too please, it is much better to have the info centralised in one well described issue.
GeneFC wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:58 pm Moving the market research to the R&D lab too soon leads to the "New Coke" phenomenon. The R&D folks thought it was great and the customers did not think the same way.
But GitHub issues are "market research" too, it is freely accessible to all users, the idea of moving the discussion to GitHub issues is not to have a developer echo chamber, but to move meaningful input from everyone to a trackable place that's linked to the development platform.
User avatar
sliptonic
Veteran
Posts: 3453
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
Location: Columbia, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Removing Image wb

Post by sliptonic »

GeneFC wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 11:58 pm
sliptonic wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 7:16 pm
.
Can I assume you are volunteering to comb through this topic and turn all the suggestions into one or more relevant issues? When will that be ready?

Or are you assuming a developer will do that work before writing the issue so they can start writing the code?

I understand your point but the "market research phase" is what the issue is for.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53786
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Removing Image wb

Post by chrisb »

sliptonic wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:35 am Can I assume you are volunteering to comb through this topic and turn all the suggestions into one or more relevant issues? When will that be ready?
That's what usually happens, that someone (not necessarily always Gene) summarizes the result of a discussion. I think too it is a bit too early to move to Github. Seeing the participation on Github, it may improve the developing time, but not the quality.
You can of course argue, that anything planned until now will be already an improvement over the current situation, but respecting good requirements (example: handle transparency - but how?) right away is sure much less work than implementing them later.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
User avatar
adrianinsaval
Veteran
Posts: 5534
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: Removing Image wb

Post by adrianinsaval »

chrisb wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:35 am Seeing the participation on Github, it may improve the developing time, but not the quality.
If you mean that we have low participation on github, then keeping things on the forum instead of github is exactly what is causing this and why we need to move these things to github. If not even the devs go to github why should the users?
but respecting good requirements (example: handle transparency - but how?) right away is sure much less work than implementing them later.
not necessarily, actually reducing the scope of initial PRs makes them easier to review and more likely to get merged quickly. Topo naming PRs are extreme examples...

Plus, you may go right now and ask for transparency controls on the issue, no real need to keep that on the forum either.
GeneFC
Veteran
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:36 pm
Location: Punta Gorda, FL

Re: Removing Image wb

Post by GeneFC »

adrianinsaval wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:25 am But it is in the coding stage, we have a starting PR already
You gotta be kidding!

This first popped up on Friday, 17 March, with zero forum discussion prior. (Yes, it was in the long list from the in-person meeting.)

The new development model put forward a few months ago calls for introducing proposals on the forum and then moving the discussion and code details to github.

This change completely violates that model.

I will leave it at that. This change is so trivial and unimportant that it will not really matter to anyone.

Gene
User avatar
paddle
Veteran
Posts: 1365
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:47 pm

Re: Removing Image wb

Post by paddle »

GeneFC wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:31 pm
adrianinsaval wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:25 am But it is in the coding stage, we have a starting PR already
You gotta be kidding!

This first popped up on Friday, 17 March, with zero forum discussion prior. (Yes, it was in the long list from the in-person meeting.)

The new development model put forward a few months ago calls for introducing proposals on the forum and then moving the discussion and code details to github.

This change completely violates that model.

I will leave it at that. This change is so trivial and unimportant that it will not really matter to anyone.

Gene
Werner is already doing the PR because he already thought about this before and everyone agrees on it. Why would things need to take months to happen.
User avatar
adrianinsaval
Veteran
Posts: 5534
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: Removing Image wb

Post by adrianinsaval »

GeneFC wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:31 pm The new development model put forward a few months ago calls for introducing proposals on the forum and then moving the discussion and code details to github.
where did you get this idea from? this is what you want not what was greed upon, here all the hits for the word "forum" at the contribution process document:
FreeCAD uses GitHub's issue-tracking system to track problems and contributions. For help requests and general discussions, use the project forum.
If the GitHub username differs from the username on the FreeCAD Forum, effort SHOULD be taken to avoid confusion.
The User or Contributor SHOULD write the issue by describing the problem they face or observe. Links to the forum or other resources are permitted but the issue SHOULD be complete and accurate and SHOULD NOT require the reader to visit the forum or any other platform to understand what is being described.
To discuss a proposed solution, Users MAY comment on the Pull Request in GitHub. Forum conversations regarding the solution SHOULD be discouraged and conversation redirected to the Pull Request or the related issue.
nowhere does it say conversation should start on the forum or that only code will be discussed on github. Read the document and you'll find this too:
To request changes, a User logs an issue on the project GitHub issue tracker.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53786
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: Removing Image wb

Post by chrisb »

adrianinsaval wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:52 pm
To discuss a proposed solution, Users MAY comment on the Pull Request in GitHub. Forum conversations regarding the solution SHOULD be discouraged and conversation redirected to the Pull Request or the related issue.
nowhere does it say conversation should start on the forum or that only code will be discussed on github. Read the document and you'll find this too:
To request changes, a User logs an issue on the project GitHub issue tracker.
If I look thoroughly at your quotes, I see that it talks about the solution, while we are still at the requirements. I don't think it's a good idea to cut this preparatory step too early, if there is still a vivid(!) discussion.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
User avatar
adrianinsaval
Veteran
Posts: 5534
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: Removing Image wb

Post by adrianinsaval »

you quoted the only place where it talks about a solution and assume everything relates to the solution, completely ignoring the fact that paragraph is mainly talking about Pull Request only mentioning issues in passing. Please read the contribution process document, the quotes come from different sections of it and there's lots of text in between plus the last quote is not in order of appearance (it actually is immediately before the third quote in the document) so these should not be read as a direct sequence (hence why I use separate quote tags for each rather than just one).

There is misunderstanding here about the purpose of github issues, the requirements for the solution can very well be discussed there, and they should be discussed there, issues don't need to be about code. And your attitude towards accepting the process or apparently even reading it are hurting it's adoption, specially since it's coming from respected forum moderators (case in point). Please lend developers a hand and try to understand and follow the process. If you personally do not desire to use github then so be it, but please stop trying to deviate attention of others away from it.
User avatar
sliptonic
Veteran
Posts: 3453
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
Location: Columbia, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Removing Image wb

Post by sliptonic »

GeneFC wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 1:31 pm
adrianinsaval wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:25 am But it is in the coding stage, we have a starting PR already
You gotta be kidding!

This first popped up on Friday, 17 March, with zero forum discussion prior. (Yes, it was in the long list from the in-person meeting.)
The problem was reported over a month ago. It got some initial discussion which confirmed that it was, in fact, a valid problem. Related problems were also raised at Fosdem.
Post Reply