Torque 3D User Group
by Josh Engebretson · in Torque 3D Professional · 01/13/2010 (4:46 pm) · 12 replies
Hello fellow Torque 3D developers,
I've been mulling over the idea of an informal "Torque 3D User Group" for source licensees.
The main goal being simply to provide a central spot for bug fixes/patches under revision control with wiki/issue tracking (using Trac). This could also help in providing fixes back in the form of patches to core development (if desired).
I see 2 branches:
Stable - 1.0 with critical bug fixes applied
Trunk - 1.1 with critical bug fixes applied
Whenever there is a new code drop from TorquePowered.com, these branches would use the drop as a new baseline and then necessary fixes rolled back in (from version control).
This should help keep track of fixes/patches and the redundant effort (and frustration) spent combing the forums for them.
I think the "Torque 3D User Group" could potentially grow some branches for ports, enhancements, and resources, though that wouldn't be the initial focus. Also, any discussion forums should remain on the TorquePowered.com site. Of course, a valid Torque 3D source license would be required.
Does this sound like something useful? I understand that in the future there may be a better system in place, that would be great and gladly willing to punt the effort when possible.
In the meantime:
- Josh Engebretson
Mythos Labs, LLC
I've been mulling over the idea of an informal "Torque 3D User Group" for source licensees.
The main goal being simply to provide a central spot for bug fixes/patches under revision control with wiki/issue tracking (using Trac). This could also help in providing fixes back in the form of patches to core development (if desired).
I see 2 branches:
Stable - 1.0 with critical bug fixes applied
Trunk - 1.1 with critical bug fixes applied
Whenever there is a new code drop from TorquePowered.com, these branches would use the drop as a new baseline and then necessary fixes rolled back in (from version control).
This should help keep track of fixes/patches and the redundant effort (and frustration) spent combing the forums for them.
I think the "Torque 3D User Group" could potentially grow some branches for ports, enhancements, and resources, though that wouldn't be the initial focus. Also, any discussion forums should remain on the TorquePowered.com site. Of course, a valid Torque 3D source license would be required.
Does this sound like something useful? I understand that in the future there may be a better system in place, that would be great and gladly willing to punt the effort when possible.
In the meantime:
- Josh Engebretson
Mythos Labs, LLC
About the author
http://www.TheEngine.Co
#2
If it proved popular/useful and there was some help, cool :) I just really want to see an improvement and have a little time/effort I can apply to it.
01/13/2010 (5:52 pm)
The (initial) goal would be limited to critical fixes. The TP site actually has a pretty good resource system. Though, the actual porting/development of resources could be helped... really, anyone not working under some form of version control is really shooting themselves in the foot. Not looking to provide this in the general sense. There are many cheap/free solutions for it.If it proved popular/useful and there was some help, cool :) I just really want to see an improvement and have a little time/effort I can apply to it.
#3
01/13/2010 (8:00 pm)
sounds like a great idea 
#4
01/13/2010 (10:27 pm)
I cast my vote for using a licensed version of GitHub to do this kind of thing. Fork/Pull-Request FTW! 
#5
As for the idea itself: I think it would definitely be beneficial :)
01/13/2010 (10:48 pm)
Whats up with that GIT hype ... is it that much better than SVN that people are willing to move over to a primarily *nix targeted thing?As for the idea itself: I think it would definitely be beneficial :)
#6
01/13/2010 (10:50 pm)
Git(Hub) is cool, though probably not mainstream enough yet... and not very cost effective for "private collaborators", also need to have fine grained permissions with no artificial limits on # of users. I am hoping there is a SVN hook which can quota users as well... which can double as an abuse detector.
#7
(This is a brief overview for non-GitHubbers) Basically the reason I favor GitHub is the user-based architecture. Traditionally version control is project-based. A project repository is created, and users get added to the project with varying permissions. If a user wants to make sweeping changes, they will create a branch, work on this branch and then, at some point, someone will have the horrible task of hand-merging those changes back in to trunk. When that happens, the changes will be slammed back in as a single revision, from the merging-author (or if there are mistakes, multiple revisions).
This is where GitHub does things slightly differently (some of these features are Git itself, and some are GitHub software). GitHub is user based, so a user creates a repository. Provided they have the required access, a user can 'Fork' the repo, and make changes, which creates a branch (a true branch, unlike SVN) of the repo, and maintains history of all contributors, including the forking user. These changes can be integrated by the repo owner by submitting a 'Pull Request' (this is GitHub terminology) which informs the owner of the trunk repository that the user (who submits the request) has some changes they want integrated. These changes can be integrated, and adjusted by the committer of the change (the committer of a change is a *different* user from the author of the change). This allows for changes to be more easily integrated as well as getting proper attribution for fixes and changes.
Ok that was probably more than I have written on any forum post in a few months. Back to the status quo.
01/14/2010 (12:52 am)
Well you can license the GitHub software for private uses, it has a pretty ugly per-user seat. I would guess that they would work out some kind of deal.(This is a brief overview for non-GitHubbers) Basically the reason I favor GitHub is the user-based architecture. Traditionally version control is project-based. A project repository is created, and users get added to the project with varying permissions. If a user wants to make sweeping changes, they will create a branch, work on this branch and then, at some point, someone will have the horrible task of hand-merging those changes back in to trunk. When that happens, the changes will be slammed back in as a single revision, from the merging-author (or if there are mistakes, multiple revisions).
This is where GitHub does things slightly differently (some of these features are Git itself, and some are GitHub software). GitHub is user based, so a user creates a repository. Provided they have the required access, a user can 'Fork' the repo, and make changes, which creates a branch (a true branch, unlike SVN) of the repo, and maintains history of all contributors, including the forking user. These changes can be integrated by the repo owner by submitting a 'Pull Request' (this is GitHub terminology) which informs the owner of the trunk repository that the user (who submits the request) has some changes they want integrated. These changes can be integrated, and adjusted by the committer of the change (the committer of a change is a *different* user from the author of the change). This allows for changes to be more easily integrated as well as getting proper attribution for fixes and changes.
Ok that was probably more than I have written on any forum post in a few months. Back to the status quo.
#8
What can happen is a focus on getting alpha/beta/final code dumps under revision control, so it is really easy to see what has changed between them... and apply fixes/patches in a useful/consistent manner with integrated tracking of change sets for those fixes/patches.
01/14/2010 (8:56 am)
I'd love to see distributed version control for Torque 3D distribution. It would make branching/tracking the source SO much better than getting a binary installer dump with no version information. It would also be a lot easier to push changes/fixes out to evangelists/power-users. This probably isn't going to happen anytime soon.What can happen is a focus on getting alpha/beta/final code dumps under revision control, so it is really easy to see what has changed between them... and apply fixes/patches in a useful/consistent manner with integrated tracking of change sets for those fixes/patches.
#9
01/14/2010 (1:56 pm)
I've found USVN to be reasonable. Hierarchical user permissions, but no quotas. Useful for the typical DAV+SVN setup where the project space has quotas and people collaborate. I always prefer Trac+SVN for many reasons. 
#10
01/14/2010 (2:47 pm)
sounds interesting. 
#11
01/22/2010 (9:28 am)
It's something I'd be really interested in seeing, anything to further improve the community and Torque products 
#12
01/23/2010 (8:56 am)
i'm up to it too!! 
Torque 3D Owner William Gooding