Given the changes in 2.8, should we ask the users, whether they are asking or answering, to indicate which version they are using, in order to make sure that the answers provided are correct?
Or, alternatively, create versions tags 2.79 and 2.8?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
It's not necessary. On the one hand, if the users are experiencing an issue, we would usually ask for screenshots, which makes it very clear whether they are on 2.7x or 2.80.
On the other hand, if they are looking for a feature or requesting advice on a workflow, the good answers will spontaneously start to transition during the Beta period from a majority of 2.7x-based to a majority of 2.8-based (and will be mostly independent from the version, apart from the hotkeys). They will likely contain the necessary remarks about "if you're using 2.8, you will find it in this other menu / with this other hotkey", either straight away or after an edit/comment by another user.
Of course, if the question is about fast PBR visualisation, or advanced creative uses of the Grease Pencil, the answerer will very likely push for 2.8.
I'm also against version tags. What the users need are answers about how to use Blender, regardless of version. A question is rarely about a particular version of blender: answers may be. So the solution is to slowly edit the answers we come across to be up-to-date.
-
$\begingroup$ See blender.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7/… as well. Eventually 2.8 will be the standard and Blender has excellent backwards compatibility. $\endgroup$– iKlsROct 17, 2018 at 11:48
-
$\begingroup$ That's a good argument as well. I haven't used Blender for that long and backwards compatibility is a problem in so many softwares that it's not even funny... $\endgroup$– SavaOct 17, 2018 at 15:45
-
1$\begingroup$ The real question is, when a new version comes out that moves everything around, who is going to go back through all of the old questions and post new answers with new screenshots for the new version? And then which answer do you mark as "accepted"? $\endgroup$– NickFeb 20, 2019 at 1:22
-
$\begingroup$ Today I'm for the umpteenth time looking for answers on a Python API problem I'm having and I get only irrelevant and outdated answers. It's tiresome. Please allow 2.8x tags at least. $\endgroup$ Oct 6, 2020 at 19:19
-
$\begingroup$ Editing to be up-to-date is kind of a pipe dream. It'd be great if it happens, but it's not going to happen. Looking forward to 3.0, we're going to see massive changes to any geo-nodes questions and answers. Most solutions are going to be useless for 3.0 users and cause confusion. And even if we were to edit stuff, we're not going to edit up/downvotes, which were made in the context of a specific version. Unfortunately, sometimes, questions and answers are specific to versions of Blender, and this can lead to problems with new users finding the best info. $\endgroup$– NathanDec 3, 2021 at 23:30
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
I don't agree that version tags are unnecessary. There's a ton of tutorials on how to use Blender, but as I am testing 2.8, and learning blender at the same time, most of my questions are "where did they move [feature name] to in the new 2.8 user interface?", which is a 2.8 specific question. I may already know what the feature does, but not how to invoke it in a version that moved everything around and changed hotkeys which differ from a tutorial created based on an older version. There may also be version specific limitations or bugs.
-
1$\begingroup$ I also think that from a (n educated) supporter's point of view such tags may seem unnecessary, but from an (uneducated) user seeking for advice such tags may be very helpful. Consider you think you've found the solution for your problem, and then you discover that it does not work for your version. Frustrating, isn't it? And don't assume or demand that users always run the latest version, please. $\endgroup$– U. WindlFeb 19, 2019 at 22:38
-
$\begingroup$ So many of my answers now begin with "As of Blender 2.8x...", not at least including a nod to the version seems insincere, especially when we mark questions as duplicates against 2.79 answers. $\endgroup$ May 23, 2020 at 17:31
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
8
I think we must include a 2.80, especially for python questions. The API did unspeakably things to backwards compatibility. Please, please consider allowing at least a [2.80] tag.
-
$\begingroup$ Disagree, there a just a few minor API changes and the old posts can updated easily based on the official guide. Also if you look around, python answers are usually got less votes but they are much more labor intensive than most of all the non-python answers - to respect the effort of the original authors updating the old answers is the way to go (IMO). $\endgroup$ Jul 17, 2020 at 18:41
-
$\begingroup$ The two versions of the API are not compatible in any meaningful way. Affirming otherwise is simply wrong. $\endgroup$ Jul 18, 2020 at 15:09
-
$\begingroup$ Again, there is only one version along with minor changes, recommend reading: wiki.blender.org/wiki/Reference/Release_Notes/2.80/Python_API (as mentioned) and you'll see that all the "changes" are more like improvements... $\endgroup$ Jul 19, 2020 at 2:51
-
$\begingroup$ Again, you must not have ported any code. I have, and I've seen that page, and pretty much all the documentation regarding changes between versions. That documentation is pretty much useless once you pass the "hello world" examples. $\endgroup$ Jul 19, 2020 at 20:16
-
$\begingroup$ Also, there are lots of questions about API changes. You yourself have answered some. We are making things difficult on purpose here, determining by screenshots or by "context" if an answer apply is quite short sighted. $\endgroup$ Jul 19, 2020 at 20:19
-
$\begingroup$ From experience answering such questions: Most people are just lazy reading the wiki page, eg: 'bpy_prop_collection' object has no attribute 'link'? -> 100 lines, swapped out one line of code. Re "useless docs": just your opinion... waste of time, no real discussion here. Any "useful argument" might be more helpful to understand why you want this. $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2020 at 6:46
-
$\begingroup$ Because when I had a problem specific to the API version I was using, I spent more time reading through lots of questions and answers that didn't apply (materials and UV mappings) $\endgroup$ Jul 20, 2020 at 14:00
-
$\begingroup$ And here I am today, again wading through pages and pages of irrelevant answers because people don't want to add a measly tag. $\endgroup$ Oct 6, 2020 at 19:21