I was wondering what needs to be done to get jME 3.1 final out. Is there something the community can help with?
Yeah, you can take a look at the PRs that have been applied to master and see if any should have also been applied to the 3.1 branch. I’ve been dragging my feet cutting beta 2 because I haven’t had time to do this and my gut feeling was that not much has changed on the branch since beta 1. I could be wrong, though.
My understanding was that there was some showstopper about jbullet or something that prevented the build, and OP was asking about that? Because otherwise, I see no point in delaying further the release.
3.0 is coupled with the netbeans7-based sdk, which DON’T support java 8 (remember, java 7 is obsolete), thus making the 3.0 platform sorta-obsolete as well…
Plus, work has already been started on 3.2…
Well, we will go through at least two more betas.
I still see lots of people complaining that they can’t move to 3.1 because of this bug or that bug… but very few submitting PRs for those I guess. And especially if we decide to officially deprecate jbullet then we will need some more testing to catch all of those last “this worked for me on 3.0 but I never said anything until now…” bugs.
I’m personally happy with the state as it is, I simply use the git master and update periodically, that way I catch all my bugs kinda instantly, while also being able to submit from time to time fixes to jme, and see a direct result if they are merged.
I do not personally really care about the fixed release numbers
Well if 3.0 works for them then they probably shouldn’t move.
I personally think that overall 3.1 is much less bug ridden than 3.0, but of course your mileage may vary.
Same as above.
My point is that new users and new projects should be redirected to 3.1 rather than 3.0 (and therefore test/work on the former rather than the latter), and releasing a stable 3.1 would help.
Not to mention that if 3.1 were released one year ago we probably wouldn’t have seen the misery of the OpenGL1 nostalgic threads
Not sure I get what you mean, double/tripple negation…
numberOfBugsExperiencedByMe(“3.0”) > numberOfBugsExperiencedByMe(“3.1”);
Same for me, the number of bug was greater on 3.0 and the 3.1 as better performance i think. (Else I’m just better and didn’t realize yet, probably both).
Edit: the major bug i got was to transfer from 3.0 to 3.1 since I was force to remake the whole project and refactor all the class to the new project.
for me 3.1 is very stable, all “bugs” I found turned out to be my fault
Is the status still the same for 3.1?
3.1 still works stable for me.
Yeah same for me … but no idea … I would just mark it stable and recommend for new projects. But I’m not the maintainer. Even the SDK feels very stable and mature. I not even know what the future plans are. I still wait for multi light support and the first alphas for 3.2… but seams to be a wish-dream
There would have to be at least a beta 2 first as there have been changes since beta1 on the 3.1 branch.
I’m still not convinced that all of the bug fixes to master have been migrated to 3.1 that should be but apparently no one else cares even as much as I do (which is now very little).
I’ve been using a version I compiled off the master branch and its been stable for me.
I was asking because of the different java versions.
jME 3.0 = java 7.
jME 3.1 = java 8.
jME master/3.2 = java 9.
Java 9 is supposed to be released in Q3 2017 ( JDK 9 ).
It would be nice to have jME 3.1 released before java 9 is released.
Hopefully there are alpha’s of jME 3.2 coming when java 9 is released.
Hmm I’m using some java8 classes under 3.0 ( such as Duration, Instant etc) - they seem working. What’s wrong with using 3.0 with 8? ( except for compiler version warning )
There shouldn’t be problem any at all, it’s just backwards compatible to Java 7.
JME 3.1 still works on Java 7.
Look. I’ll make it easy for all of you.
I just invented a brand new language where the word “beta” actually means “super-final most stable thing ever”.
Look, we who already work with jme know that 3.1 is stable. But try telling that to newcomers some other way than labeling it “stable”.
Well, it does make it easy to spot that folks who think a word is more important than anything else. I think that’s useful.
Look, I’ll probably push beta 2 soon with whatever partial quality we have. No one in the community seems willing to step up and help at all… so I’ll push the last beta 2 through… let it sit and grow stale for a week or two and then label it final/stable/whatever.
…then we can let JME slowly die the death of no-maintenance.