wiki missing info

Hi I just want to note some missing/ out of date information in wiki:

- Camera is missing the "GroupList" description

- Viewport has now "TextureList" instead(?) of the "Texture"


  • edited December 2014
    Hi Trigve, this could be one of those situations where the wiki information is tied to the downloadble release, as opposed to the bleeding edge version on bitbucket.

    This is a situation that is a hard call. Perhaps we need to add bleeding edge changes to the wiki pages underneath the stable information to indicate that the details are different.

    I can make the wiki change if required.
  • edited December 2014
    I see.

    I just noticed it when reading some post here in which someone was using the group list but I couldn't find the info in the config section of the wiki.
  • edited December 2014
    I definitely forgot to update those. I don't have much computer time till next week when I'll be back, so if sausage (or someone else) wants to update it before then go for it. Otherwise I'll do it when I'm back. :)
  • edited December 2014
    No worries, I arrive home from holidays this evening so will get it done.

    Trigve, I forgot to mention, in the meantime, use the CreationTemplate.ini from your latest pulled down version of orx for all the config values:

    And the setting one too:

    These are the online links but you'll also have these files in your current orx pulldown.
  • edited December 2014
    Since you guys are at it:

    GroupId is missing here too =)
  • edited December 2014
    thanks for the reminding, I totally forgot about them :)
  • edited December 2014
    Hi Guys, both entries updated. I'll add a shared banner to each wiki settings page to redirect users to the bitbucket settings links to remind them to go there for bleeding edge info.

    That reminds me, we call the downloadable orx version, the downloadable orx version :)

    What do we actually call the bitbucket version??

    * Bitbucket version of orx
    * Bleeding edge version of orx
    * Orx repo
    * Mercurial version of orx

    Not sure how to phrase it for documentation.
  • edited December 2014
    Isn't the bitbucket version the non stable version? Could be nighly, in this case.
  • edited December 2014
    "Nightly" would make it confusing.

    The orx builds for the download version over at sourceforge ( have nightly builds.
  • edited December 2014
    There's also:

    * Unstable version of orx
    * Development version of orx

    The first one has a bit of a negative connotation. But perhaps the second one?
  • edited December 2014
    Development seems fine by me.
  • edited December 2014
    Yeah me too I reckon. What do you think iarwain?
  • edited December 2014
    Development version sounds good to me.

    Somewhere it should be specified that it's the source mercurial repository on BitBucket though, but one place should be plenty. What do you think?
  • edited December 2014
    Yep cool. So it's correct to say that the development version of Orx is the source mercurial repository on bitbucket.

    Slightly clunky... is it more correct to say mercurial source repository?

    Otherwise yep, all good.
  • edited December 2014
    I've added a shared section on all config wiki pages to direct people to bitbucket source if they find settings different between the development and downloadable versions.
  • edited January 2015
    Source repository or mercurial repository sounds good to me.Thanks for the updates, Sausage!
Sign In or Register to comment.