wsteffe wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:56 am
Yes, the "one Body limitation" was a very important reason to use Link Branch also for me. I asked several times to remove it in the master but got very disappointing responses. This change (which would be very simple) was not accepted because, in the usual meaning, a "body" should be a single connected object. I also suggested to change the "Body" name (for example using "Part" instead) but this suggestion was also rejected because body (in the current implementation) is restricted to be a single solid. It was a sort of catch-22 situation and I had to surrender.
Being so difficult to have accepted such a simple change (which many users ask), there is no hope for the TN merging.
Did you make a PR or asked someone else to work on something they don't agree with for free on their spare time? Huge difference... Plus, it's an easy change acording to you, we'll have to see if that is really the case. Note that i do agree that the single body rule is stupid and should be removed, but whatch your tone.
C_h_o_p_i_n wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 8:20 am
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.
I have to agree here, eventually a hard fork will happen if this is not merged into master, and people will most likely choose the version with better features, we know which one that is...
wsteffe wrote: ↑Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:35 am
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.
Not the case, but I would appreciate some actual communication from wmayer who is the main guy everyone is waiting for, I dislike the supposed rumours of behind the scenes work to move the TN merge forward, it does not make sense to work on FOSS code review behind the scenes, if it's true then please change this behaviour and if it's false... please be sincere I'd much rather have a clear statement in the lines of: "I currently do not have the time and/or motivation to review such a large and complex PR, this is on hold" (which is perfectly understandable) than to be left dangling not knowing what the hell is going on or if anything is happening at all.
Sorry to bother you but I have to ask. Is it realistic to hope this will get worked on in the foreseable future?