Leaderboard

Unwrapped, rigged, 696 triangles Whoever paints it, you decide if you want to keep the teeth polys. wolf.zip

Fixed in r13536

Nicely put Erik. Three last thing: * As we did with Philip, money should be paid weekly, not a lump sum. * We should have a clear roadmap of changes Jorma will do over the next 2 months. Jorma would need to write this up, and could be the starting point of the regular development updates. * Jorma tends to write code with C++11 features. We haven't decided to make the switch yet, and having C++11 features in a conditional is asking for trouble, so for now, I would recommend we enforce only the most widely supported stuff be used, for now anyway, and if we decide to use c++11 in the future, we'll switch.

I have talked a bit with a few of the more active programmers, and there are two things which are clear. First, they think Jorma is a highly talented programmer. Second, that it at least can seem as if he's a bit too prone to rewrite whole parts of the code as opposed to improve on what's already there, even if the task he set out to complete would be completed (and in less time, and easier to review) by improving the existing code. This can of course be both a good and a bad thing. The old code might be so bad that the only way forward is to rewrite/it might be less effort etc. On the other hand, rewriting code means it's a lot more code to review for other programmers, and can of course introduce new errors. It can also be hard for someone else to judge whether the rewrite is a good or a bad thing. All-in-all this doesn't mean that Jorma can't get paid/never should rewrite anything, I just think there are a few things he (and everyone else who makes any substantial changes for that matter) can do to make it easier both to review and to accept bigger changes (these are based on things the programmers mentioned, but using my words. In other words, don't blame them if something sounds weird, and don't give me credit if there's something great ): If the objective of the change is to improve performance it should be demonstrated clearly (using e.g. one of the existing profilers or an external profiling tool) comparing the results before and after the code change. If entire bigger blocks of code is rewritten it should be demonstrated clearly that the alternative of improving the existing code has been considered. I don't mean that the programmer needs to write an essay on the pros and cons of doing things one way or another, but it should be obvious that's not just done on a whim, "I can't be bothered figuring out why someone else did things that way so I'll just rewrite things the way I think is best". Exactly how it is done is less important, it can be done through forum discussions with other programmers, it can be a few lines in the Trac ticket describing the thought process (and preferably offering some kind of proof that the rewrite is necessary), etc. Just something to acknowledge that the old code has been considered and not just thrown away because it seemed easier to begin from scratch. (And of course it depends on the scale of the rewrite how much effort should be spent, rewriting a couple of hundred lines of code or something shouldn't need more than a line or two in the relevant Trac ticket while rewriting entire files/sets of files of code should preferably be discussed thoroughly beforehand.) In conclusion, I think (with the above posts and my discussion with the programmers as a base for my thoughts) that Jorma should be paid with the Pledgie money under the following conditions: 1) that he communicates to the rest of the team and the fans at least once or twice a week in a progress report, and 2) that he communicates to the other programmers why he has made the choices he has.

I think it's okay but I would want some accountability worked into this contract, such as with a plan for progress reports. As of April 2013, we have $5,650, of which $4,140 is set aside to whatever was promised to Pledgie donors (Source 1, Source 2). It is really important to show that we are putting existing money to good use before we ask for more.