search

Redot-Engine / redot-engine

Redot Engine – Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine
https://redotengine.org/
MIT License
4.68k stars 205 forks source link

Missing 3.x branch on repo #38

Closed capsiir-2997 closed 3 weeks ago

capsiir-2997 commented 1 month ago

Tested versions

N/A

System information

N/A

Issue description

Might be a big problem for people who don't wanna use the official Godot source code yet want to keep using 3.x instead of 2.x/4.x

Steps to reproduce

N/A

Minimal reproduction project (MRP)

N/A

SwissCore92 commented 1 month ago

I think the main branch should befocused instead. Maintaining one version will be hard enough.

KAW0 commented 1 month ago

I believe that 2.x is just small mistake. 3.x is legacy and I don't see any point in working on it. It would mostly be duplicates of what upstream does.

kubaofc123 commented 1 month ago

I don't think 3.x is worth maintaining here. As a fork of the engine, there should be single point of divergence, from which development continues.

TwistedPone commented 1 month ago

I do wonder if we should have the latest version of 3.x and figure out a way to allow user to move from 3.x to Redot 4.x, cause I know some users aren't ready to move to 4 yet.

temotskipa commented 1 month ago

I also think latest versions should be prioritized. 3.x/2.x are legacy and thus useless.

capsiir-2997 commented 1 month ago

3.x definitely isn't legacy if 3.6 exists. Personally I still use 3.x and many other people definitely will want to keep using it because porting a 3.x project to 4.x has its own annoying issues. It's completely fine of course if 3.x doesn't stay maintained for this fork but it wouldn't make sense for 2.x/1.x to stay on the repo either way

Capewearer commented 1 month ago

I agree with anyone above, but it would be more meaningful to backport some Godot 3 features like Rooms&Portals occlusion culling system.

TheRektafire commented 1 month ago

Yeah some of the lighter weight features from godot 3 like the room and portal system could be helpful for supporting lower spec pcs which imo is one of the main reasons to use 3.x, the other main one obviously being if you already have a godot 3 project that's mostly done already and it wouldn't make sense to upgrade at this point

slapin commented 1 month ago

Main reason to use 3.x is support for wider spectrum of hardware available; It has quite the following. 4.x gets all other features including quality of life ones, which can be backported to 3.x. 3.x is quite lively and 3.7 will be quite nice.

jackokring commented 1 month ago

OpenGLES2? Working on cheaper Mali chipsets? Backporting 4.x features for 3.x code? So this is just a Vulkan only remix then. Not everybody is a 3D fanatic.

PEMI-len commented 4 weeks ago

i would be relatively okay with just having the 4.x branch, but only if there is planned feature parity with version 3.x. not everything of course, like we only need one lod system if there's a clear winner. however, there are some things that 3 just does better and 4 is behind in those areas, namely 3D support for old or legacy devices. handy for those making retro stylized 3D games that look like they should run on a potato. frustrating when those don't work on a device that should support it. in addition, i still don't trust 4 for web exports, though I don't know how far ahead it has improved compared to 3.

capsiir-2997 commented 3 weeks ago

Closing because 3.x branches now exist on the repository (even though they don't even have the rebranding, but the branches exist at least)