Talk:Building LuxCoreRender - Revision history

Howetuft: /* Workflow types */

2025-04-26T12:44:37Z

Workflow types

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 26 April 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Answer: this is the eternal debate between top/down and bottom/up presentations (sorry, I was a consultant for many years...).		Answer: this is the eternal debate between top/down and bottom/up presentations (sorry, I was a consultant for many years...).
	I'm more of a top-down person... The most important thing is to publish, development is just a subprocess of that; hence the order. But I'm not a sectarian: if you prefer the wiki the other way round, I'll let you modify it!		I'm more of a top-down person... The most important thing is to publish, development is just a subprocess of that; hence the order. But I'm not a sectarian: if you prefer the wiki the other way round, I'll let you modify it! Please do...

	== Minor suggestions ==		== Minor suggestions ==

Howetuft: /* Workflow types */

2025-04-26T12:44:21Z

Workflow types

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 26 April 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Answer: this is the eternal debate between top/down and bottom/up presentations (sorry, I was a consultant for many years...).		Answer: this is the eternal debate between top/down and bottom/up presentations (sorry, I was a consultant for many years...).
	I'm more of a top-down person... The most important thing is to publish, development is just a subprocess of that; hence the order. But I'm not a sectarian: if you prefer the wiki the other way round, I'll let you modify it.		I'm more of a top-down person... The most important thing is to publish, development is just a subprocess of that; hence the order. But I'm not a sectarian: if you prefer the wiki the other way round, I'll let you modify it!

	== Minor suggestions ==		== Minor suggestions ==

Howetuft: /* Workflow types */

2025-04-26T12:39:37Z

Workflow types

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:39, 26 April 2025
Line 8:		Line 8:
	I do see your final line under the '''Workflow types''' section, now referencing this in an opposite logic.		I do see your final line under the '''Workflow types''' section, now referencing this in an opposite logic.

			Answer: this is the eternal debate between top/down and bottom/up presentations (sorry, I was a consultant for many years...).
			I'm more of a top-down person... The most important thing is to publish, development is just a subprocess of that; hence the order. But I'm not a sectarian: if you prefer the wiki the other way round, I'll let you modify it.

	== Minor suggestions ==		== Minor suggestions ==

CodeHD: Continuation of external discussion

2025-04-25T22:36:50Z

Continuation of external discussion

New page

__NOTOC__

== Workflow types ==
I did not sufficiently clarify my previous reasoning why '''Developer Workflows''' should come before '''Publisher workflows'''. Referencing to an unnamed statement in the introruction was insufficient on my side.

My point was the typical order of execution: First, you do development, then you publish. Therefore, I would have placed development first.

I do see your final line under the '''Workflow types''' section, now referencing this in an opposite logic.

== Minor suggestions ==
* Publisher Workflows -> Prerequisites: Mention the use of a local fork already at this point.

* use '''bold''' formatting instead of only ''cursive'' for more obvious emphasis in important locations. Without concrete suggestions right now which are particularly important.

* Change the phrase "'''magic''' words"