The Persistence of Vision Raytracer (POV-Ray).
This is the legacy Bug Tracking System for the POV-Ray project. Bugs listed here are being migrated to our github issue tracker. Please refer to that for new reports or updates to existing ones on this system.
Attached to Project: POV-Ray
Opened by Mike H - 2010-06-23
Last edited by Jim Holsenback - 2010-06-26
Opened by Mike H - 2010-06-23
Last edited by Jim Holsenback - 2010-06-26
FS#148 - Thumbnails in docs for shapes.inc, shapes_old.inc, shapes2.inc, shapesq.inc, etc.
The documentation entries for shapes.inc, shapes_old.inc, shapes2.inc, shapesq.inc, etc. should have thumbnails next to the object descriptions.
Closed by Jim Holsenback
Saturday, 26 June 2010, 09:19 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:
Saturday, 26 June 2010, 09:19 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:
adequate discussion … let's move on
Yikes ... lot of images. I quit counting after two dozen. I find that the macro identifier names to be descriptive enough. I find that if I'm curious enough it's just an easy matter to quickly render it myself. I think that it would also add unnecessary bulk to the distribution.
"I think that it would also add unnecessary bulk to the distribution."
I didn't consider that. How about someplace online where the images could be stored and linked to, like the wiki? Are there any existing plans to link to the wiki from within the docs?
I've already linked some areas in the dist docs to Wiki content so that would NOT be totally out of the question, however I'd hesitate to even classify this request as "nice to have" ... I think "busy work" would be a better fit. If something like this was to be considered I'd think woods.inc, stones.inc, metals.inc would be better places to focus. BTW: had even at one point considered dropping the color capsules produced for the colors.inc file. Unless you can sway my opinion with a more substantial reason to move forward with this ... I'm going to close this request.
Oh BTW: while I have your attention ... On the Wiki ... have you noticed the preview button? Each time you save a file you create an entirely new document in the database. Granted it's generally text and low-ish overhead but creates another revision nonetheless. I find using the preview feature in my work flow a little more efficient than saving, finding a typo, or wanting to change wording/formatting then creating a whole new revision for just a couple of words. Give it a whirl
There is a portfolio to render in the distribution, but it might be interesting to have a bit more images in the wiki documentation, in particular when listing the various objects: a sample or two might help a lot for each objects.
The "macro" for the include about quartic/quadric might also be better illustrated. (than having to open the include file to know there is interesting shapes)
The Wiki documentation is the source from which the distribution doc sets are built. If it's in the Wiki docs, it's in the dist doc sets unless I script an exclusion.
Whether it be nice-to-have or just a major PITA to do - I think it should be pretty low priority: The consistency and correctness of the 3.7 documentation doesn't depend on it, and I guess there's still some other work to do.
"The Wiki documentation is the source from which the distribution doc sets are built. If it's in the Wiki docs, it's in the dist doc sets unless I script an exclusion."
There are other, non-doc areas of the wiki where they could be put.
"Whether it be nice-to-have or just a major PITA to do"
Would be willing to render the images and upload them myself.
"I find that the macro identifier names to be descriptive enough."
Not me. I have no clue what a lot of them do.
"Oh BTW: while I have your attention ... On the Wiki ... have you noticed the preview button? Each time you save a file you create an entirely new document in the database. Granted it's generally text and low-ish overhead but creates another revision nonetheless. I find using the preview feature in my work flow a little more efficient than saving, finding a typo, or wanting to change wording/formatting then creating a whole new revision for just a couple of words. Give it a whirl"
Is that a request?
FAQ area seems to be the best fit, well maybe not, as this doesn't seem to be a frequently asked question by anyone except you
Like I said I quit counting a two dozen, perhaps you've already come up with an accurate count. At any rate theres the matter of the links to those images. Since it's for documentation I would INSIST on the naming convention that I've setup, but it seems to me that somehow I'd get into some protracted discussion with you over the naming convention I'm using. I still stand by my assertion that this initiative amounts to nothing but busy work.
Clipka said:
> The consistency and correctness of the 3.7 documentation doesn't depend on it ...
That would have been enough for me to think that is was time to move on ... can't you agree with that?
honestly ... you're the first person I've ever heard say that!
Respectfully yes ... today I see 8 additional revisions of a specific document for the sake of 618 characters. What's the harm in seeing it my way ... the preview button is yer friend ;)
I'm kind of a sedimental thinker. The good ideas settle to the bottom and form a hard sub-strata. The others move to the top and float around until a they drift to someplace that's better.