At least partly because it only really works with standard prims, you know, being a prim-alignment tool.

Actually, the Lab’s argument here seems to be that the alignment tool is incomplete (though I’d say it is more complete than a number of features I’ve seen the Lab ship over the last few years), and that since it provides assistance to only one set of fiddly, annoying tasks that it should not be included.

At least, that’s the way I read it. Here’s the rejection notice in its own words from the relevant JIRA:

Thanks for making this effort. Alignment and snapping are an area where there are useful enhancements to be made.
However, we are not able to accept this contribution as it is.

These are the primary issues we found which resulted in that decision:

  • The feature should support the same modes as the other manipulation modes.
    • It does not work for non-mod permission objects. This functionality should work for all objects that the user can manipulate in-world.
    • It only supports World snap mode, not Reference and Local modes, unlike all our other manipulation modes.
  • It packs and aligns to the face of the object bounding box. If objects are not cubes and do not share the same alignment, or aren’t aligned with the world coordinates (see above), the result of the operation is unexpected. Ideally the operations would use the actual shape of the object for aligning and packing.
  • There are also some coding implementation style issues that would need to be addressed. These can be covered in more depth after the functionality is dealt with.

In it’s current form, this is usable for purely prim-based builders under specific circumstances. It’s less useful for building with non-cube prims, mesh, sculpties. It’s minimally useful for building when the structure is not facing a global direction (ex: North, South, East, West). It’s not usable by non-building residents who need to place and organize purchased items.

Basically, the argument looks to me as if it is largely being rejected because it does not perform tasks that it was not designed or intended to do. Quite ironically, as this is the same logic that many journalists use to call Second Life a failure.

As it is, though, I’m ready to call this one dead. While the rejection is only for the contribution in its current form,  I don’t think Qarl is necessarily going to take the time to rework it – he has other things on his plate – and I don’t think the Lab will be pressured into changing its mind on this.

Thanks to Dil Spitz for the heads-up.

UPDATE: Qarl responds.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Got a news tip or a press-release? Send it to [email protected].
  • Support us

    Writing is my day job. Site advertising pays for the hosting, but nothing else. Help keep us in coffee and keyboards

    ... or donate in Second Life at this location.

  • ...or use Flattr

  • Read previous post:
    Close