From an organizational standpoint, it might be simpler to do as Badmi suggested earlier:
Perhaps we should divide the developers into two groups, one working on the release schedule, the other based on the game.
Perhaps Mojo and Renanse on one team (game?) and llama, irrisor and Badmi on the other. It any one else would like to contribute code to either aspect, release features or game, simply have them submit it to one team or the other.
Unless CVS access can be controlled on a "per directory" basis, I don't know how you'd keep any order in place otherwise.
Ok, hold on here guys… there's not gonna be any dividing up in "teams". This simply does not reflect in any way the reality of how jME was or is developed. Not that I wouldn't like to be on the "Game" team, but as of yet I've not received any calls from Austin.
For CVS, though I'm not the one to ultimatly decide, I'll repeat what I said earlier… you don't have to sell your soul for getting CVS access if you want to work on something. The fact that in theory you could touch code you were not going to work on is hardly a consideration for granting that. We're all reasonable people here, and if any of you were to abuse such acces we can always roll back the code and revoke acces. What matters is what you plan to do for jME, and to what degree it is believable you can accomplish that.
true, but if I would contribute all the stuff i've made(at work + spare time) it could be made into an engine/editor/game itself. and without getting a developer stamp i'd rather setup my own open-source lib instead of just throwing months of your life into some other peoples names(that is, those that people see in the devlist as those who made it all)…
sounds like i'm a sucky person, but getting your name out counts in this business…
MrCoder i believe that you must communicate directly with mojo for getting developer access, and i also think that anyone who commits time developing for JME and presenting some serious output must get developer status. As for bug fixes and feature enhancements that consists of only some classes i believe a code review process
in the forums is the right way to do it. for example i don't want to get developer status for my cal3d loader, i dont even want my cal3d loader in jme source tree since it is just addon functionality that won't add something new to the JME core. Perhaps there can be a solution like OGRE where there is a section in CVS for third party developed
libraries adding functionality, and perhaps enhance a little the JME core so that it supports pluggable Scene managers, display systems, model loaders etc.
And yes MrCoder i agree with your opinion, that if your changes add a lot of new functionality and dont get developer status and the credit for your changes, why not
just create a fork project.
Jme's developer base shall not consist of too many persons though, since in my country we say "Where too many cocks sing …".
Well mrCoder, if you're going to contribute all that stuff we saw in the screenshots, of course you'll get access. I'll give you mine if I have to That said, any contributions you made should have your name on it already. If you see that missing, let us know…
And kman, a seperate CVS for user contributions from the community might be a good idea (also for work under different licenses.) Maybe someone from the community would like to open a java.net project for it?
Guys, many good postings here, so forgive me if I ask some basic questions or state the obvious…
Contributors are listed here: http://www.jmonkeyengine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=42&Itemid=65 if you've contributed something to jME that you feel deserves praise, credit, the respect of your peers (well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad) then let us know who you are and remind us what you did. It's as simple as that. MrCoder, I believe you were added to that list almost 3 months ago…
You might argue about the prestige of being a contributor versus a developer… Hell, I would say that for a good part of jME's life I contributed 75-80 percent of the code while Mark took a break from coding, so maybe I should complain that listing developer vs. creator is misleading to the amount of code done? Honestly though, I fail to see why it matters. In my opinion, being on that page regardless of heading is equal prestige. The only more fair way to do it would be to list next to each name why they are there (eg. Arman Ozcelik - Sound System) etc. And we could look into that I'm sure.
Regarding CVS access… Are bug fixes / features not going into CVS fast enough? I don't think anyone can fairly say they are not. CVS access has traditionally been granted to people who A. have been actively contributing to jME's code for a certain amount of time, B. have shown a solid understanding of how jME works. Yes, you can always roll back poorly written code or code written that undermines existing functionality, BUT it is still disruptive. Still, as with useful code posted to the forums, useful ideas are always welcomed. I like the idea of a seperate community cvs from core, we kind of went that way with the jmex stuff and could really do a better job there.
Regarding Austin… Sorry to burst any bubbles out there, but NCSoft only works WITH jME. There's no jME game team here and NCSoft has no ownership stake in jME. We also don't sit here working on new jME features or fixes all day. All that said, we DO add onto the engine (locally) and fix bugs (locally) as they arise during the production of a real, funded, and hopefully commercial product. And thankfully, NCSoft has been very permissive so far in contributing back those fixes and even the batch system to jME's CVS.
Regarding .10… It's not out yet, and mostly that's my fault because 2 of the 3 last .10 features (better logging and BSP) are assigned to me in the issue tracker and I haven't finished them yet. My excuse is that I am still in an apartment and my coding environment is not well set up yet. We closed on a house last week and should be moved in early April so hopefully I can get cracking on finishing my code there. That said, I am in favor of pushing those features out to .11 and releasing .10 after extensive community testing. It is robust and has lots of new features (many unplanned) and bug fixes.
Finally, keep in mind that we are all passionate about jMonkeyEngine, Java and gaming in general and all want to see a top quality engine. jME for me has always been about cooperating with that common spirit in mind and I'd like it to remain that way.
I was going to write a long post on how much difference it makes to have cvs-access when it comes to speed and willingness to commit code(due to the ease)…
but probably what it all boils down to for me, is that I'm a sucker for status…as simple as that…and that makes me wanting to put more spare time into the project…never been an "i put down all this time so that all the poor people in the third world can make games too"…
I now dub thee Wicked Cool Captain of Coding for jME…now you've got status…get back to work. :roll:
I understand your plight, many of us here have ambitions of some day being able to either get a great job in game development and/or start up our own successful game development ventures and the most notoriety we can achieve in the community the more publicity we receive for our creations. I feel the same thing, it's not a "I want recognition for the sake of recognition", but just recognition helps pave the way for successful ventures.
I doubt it will help much, but I consider you a key contributor right now to jME as you seem to have more experience with some of the more advanced effects and such. I believe we all very much appreciate your contributions so far and hope that they can continue.
Common guys, read a little closer before spouting off PLEASE. Which of the four developers said no one else was getting cvs access? Personally all I wrote was "CVS access has traditionally been granted to people who A. have been actively contributing to jME's code for a certain amount of time, B. have shown a solid understanding of how jME works." But for prestige alone? I mean really… What prestige? Let's get real. We are developing an open source Java project here. (Edit: to clarify, I don't feel Java projects especially in our niche get all that much public recognition so why fight over it.)
So hey, let's give real credit to our contributors. We should go through each name on that list and detail what they contributed to jMonkeyEngine. Any potential employer is going to ask you what you did for jME, how you did it, etc., regardless of some title on a web page. Let's make it plain and clear so that you get all the credit you deserve. If you wrote a new physics addition, a network package, or some eye candy glsl passes for jME, you can tell that to the world. "See XYZ feature they are showing off in this demo, this proves I contributed the first cut of it." That will do more for getting you in the door somewhere than simply being #4 on a list of names.
If I wasn't confident you meant to say "Come on guys" instead of "Common guys" I might be offended. :-p
I agree with you Renanse, giving explicit credit for aspects of jME that have been contributed is probably the most fair way to go. I would still push for Mr. Coder to have CVS access primarily so I can see the cool features he's working on faster, but that's just my own agenda showing through. :o Not saying you have said you won't, just saying I think he deserves it more than anyone else here that doesn't have it…but my opinion rarely counts and I'm cool with that.
I've never been opposed to granting dev access… I've rarely been asked. I've just set a little bit of criteria, which I think is perfectly fair.
You've shown that you understand the structure of jME, and are willing to work within it or improve it.
(Basically means, if you are trying to do something new, can't figure out a key component of jME that should allow you to do it, don't write a workaround, but either work harder to understand that component or fix it if there is a bug/missing feature that is keeping you from progressing).
Ask.
1 usually requires you finishing something new as well. I could grant dev access based on promises all day, but it won't do any good for the project.
Now that NCsoft is my primary concern, I'll definitely be more leniant and open to granting dev access. Show me 1 and 2, and I'll create a poll to allow the community the final say.
Sounds a good plan Mojo. With both youreself and Renanse focusing primarily on NCSoft requirements within JME, think the consensus is that another developer is required
As I understand it, Renanse and Mojo both plan to spend some of their free time on jME too… once they're all set up in their new houses. (Do these guys love jME or what?)
So I don't think it's needed… but it's certainly welcomed if there's someone out there who fits the profile. Just like all the contributions you guys make all the time
That said, any contributions you made should have your name on it already. If you see that missing, let us know…
