3 ms·

This PR specifically is about getting Godot able to build for visionOS. Even if Godot insisted on needing OpenXR support , you’d still need to land this PR to

by dagmx 1y ago

This PR specifically is about getting Godot able to build for visionOS. Even if Godot insisted on needing OpenXR support , you’d still need to land this PR to get the engine itself to work first.

andsoitis 1y ago
Apple has no intention of fitting within godot’s GTM strategy for VR via OpenXR standard. Amongst other signals, the PR comment says: “To support creating Immersive experiences by using a new Godot's visionOS VR Plugin.”
- dagmx 1y ago
  Okay? That still doesn’t mitigate the need for this specific PR first though to even get to that discussion point. That line you mention is not part of the contents of this PR.
  - andsoitis 1y ago
    A good partner discusses startegy and shared interest first, negotiates terms of engagement, tradeoffs, shared roadmaps, etc. Instead we get a pretty arrogant and presumptive interaction from the Apple crew. It should be noted that Apple is struggling with visionOS and Pro adoption amongst consumers and developers, so their arrogance is unwarranted and they cannot rely on market power.
    - dagmx 1y ago
      That’s what this PR is! It’s a first attempt to start that dialogue. You can even see the employee trying to address notes as they come in, and asking if there are better ways they should align with Godot. Point to the arrogance involved. From all your comments I can see you have an intense distaste for Apple and I honestly feel it’s colouring your perception of this change. The only person who seems upset is you. The Godot maintainers are positive, Miguel is positive. Should contributors never open PRs until they’ve discussed it first? What if they want to get feedback on an idea in code form?
    - StrLght 1y ago
      How is it arrogant? What should they do instead? It feels like we're reading different discussions. All I see is Apple engineers addressing every raised concern. Getting angry at companies for contributing to OSS is not the hill to die on. If it is -- I can't even imagine your feelings towards Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Google, etc. for their contributions to Linux.
    - threeseed 1y ago
      > Instead we get a pretty arrogant and presumptive interaction from the Apple crew. You're being completely ridiculous here. It's a well-written, considered, appropriate for the project PR. No one is being forced at gun point to accept it.

by dagmx 1y ago

This PR specifically is about getting Godot able to build for visionOS. Even if Godot insisted on needing OpenXR support , you’d still need to land this PR to get the engine itself to work first.

andsoitis 1y ago

Apple has no intention of fitting within godot’s GTM strategy for VR via OpenXR standard. Amongst other signals, the PR comment says: “To support creating Immersive experiences by using a new Godot's visionOS VR Plugin.”

dagmx 1y ago
Okay? That still doesn’t mitigate the need for this specific PR first though to even get to that discussion point. That line you mention is not part of the contents of this PR.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  A good partner discusses startegy and shared interest first, negotiates terms of engagement, tradeoffs, shared roadmaps, etc. Instead we get a pretty arrogant and presumptive interaction from the Apple crew. It should be noted that Apple is struggling with visionOS and Pro adoption amongst consumers and developers, so their arrogance is unwarranted and they cannot rely on market power.
  - dagmx 1y ago
    That’s what this PR is! It’s a first attempt to start that dialogue. You can even see the employee trying to address notes as they come in, and asking if there are better ways they should align with Godot. Point to the arrogance involved. From all your comments I can see you have an intense distaste for Apple and I honestly feel it’s colouring your perception of this change. The only person who seems upset is you. The Godot maintainers are positive, Miguel is positive. Should contributors never open PRs until they’ve discussed it first? What if they want to get feedback on an idea in code form?
  - StrLght 1y ago
    How is it arrogant? What should they do instead? It feels like we're reading different discussions. All I see is Apple engineers addressing every raised concern. Getting angry at companies for contributing to OSS is not the hill to die on. If it is -- I can't even imagine your feelings towards Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Google, etc. for their contributions to Linux.
  - threeseed 1y ago
    > Instead we get a pretty arrogant and presumptive interaction from the Apple crew. You're being completely ridiculous here. It's a well-written, considered, appropriate for the project PR. No one is being forced at gun point to accept it.