openmw.org

Hey, I was just thinking that perhaps if we could think of any developers who haven't been active in awhile and just politely email them about any particular issue that they might be good at, and then ask if they have any feedback on the issue. This might be a good way to coax them back.

There aren't really that many inactive developers that did a lot of work on OpenMW (reminds me though that I have to update the team list again). Most of those listed under inactive developers added maybe a commit or two. There are a few who did more work, be the areas they worked on mostly received a lot of rewriting and refactoring since they left, so these developers would essentially start at zero again.

Overall I don't think it is worth the trouble, especially since we have plenty of developers at the moment (and to be honest we are getting close to the limit what I can manage within a spare time project).

Time for a duo of project leads? Would an army of bugtesters be useful to the project or would all the bugs take resources away from developing new features?

Time for a duo of project leads?

The coordination overhead would probably kill any advantage this gains us.

Would an army of bugtesters be useful to the project or would all the bugs take resources away from developing new features?

Our RC testing is still kinda weak. Having a few more people trying the release candidates would definitely help.

But overall, I think we are good.

The coordination overhead would probably kill any advantage this gains us.

If the team continues expanding we could assign a second project lead to oversee a team on the construction set. They could work more independently.

Our RC testing is still kinda weak. Having a few more people trying the release candidates would definitely help.

But overall, I think we are good.

Good to hear.

ElderTroll wrote:

The coordination overhead would probably kill any advantage this gains us.

If the team continues expanding we could assign a second project lead to oversee a team on the construction set. They could work more independently.

Great idea, it would be awesome to see some work done on the construction set soon

Zini wrote:

Time for a duo of project leads?

The coordination overhead would probably kill any advantage this gains us.

Some other Open Source projects must have run into this issue. You could always go and ask them to see what they did to solve it?

Wouldn't it be better to get OpenMW at or close to 1.0 and just shift unused members to the editor then, after they are familiar with how OpenMW will work and the ideas surrounding the editor's construction are better hammered out?

We are talking about problems here that don't exist yet and maybe never will exist. Seems somewhat pointless. Really guys, we are doing good. No need to worry about anything at this time.

About the editor: I talked with pvdk about it and he said he would have a lot spare time available for it next month. That should be good enough to get us started. For the most parts we already have a solid design, so we will probably make a lot of progress in the near future.

Greendogo wrote:Wouldn't it be better to get OpenMW at or close to 1.0 and just shift unused members to the editor then, after they are familiar with how OpenMW will work and the ideas surrounding the editor's construction are better hammered out?

The problem is that after we are done with OpenMW 1.0 we will need to extend the ESX format to develop OpenMW further. We can't do that with the TES-CS, which means after OpenMW 1.0 all development work on it (except for bug-fixes) would have come to a stop. I don't think that would be healthy for the project.