That’s reasonable. Having a “stable” and “dev” option for box2d. I don’t know if we really need both though. Like I said before, I think it’s fine having the latest commit as long as we can tag it and make it our release version. My concern was regularly updating the version based on whatever the latest commits were. If we exercise caution then I would change my vote to use the latest commit as well.
Erin just don’t have time to tag it. He is very busy with Overwatch.
It makes things complex.
From what I recall, it’s not hard to incorporate Box2d source, and it’s optional anyway as there’s the built-in physics, so why complicate things? Why not just leave box2d out, and give comprehensive instructions how to incorporate it from source if you want to?
That might actually be the best solution. If chipmunk is being used as the default physics engine in cocos2d-x then it might make sense to exclude box2d all together and leave it up to developers to incorporate third party libraries that aren’t part of the core framework. I agree also, if they take it out then it would be really good to have detailed instructions on how to include it in the documentation for those that have been relying on it so they’re not left out in the cold.
Yep, it is a good idea, and i will remove the dependence of Box2D, and let developers integrate it themself.
1 Like
sounds good to me 
And may be cocos2d-x 3rd party libraries don’t have to provide prebuilt Box2D too.
I don’t understand, why you created this vote at all? You just listen one idea, which you like but not all people who voted.
Actually, best you just need to do - revert back Box2D changes and forget about it, let it be as was before. And who need latest v2.3.2 will easily replace source folder. Thats it.
The engine doesn’t depend on it, it is reasonable to remove the dependence. I don’t know what’s the problem.
People voted for use latest commit. But not removing.
You asked community what they want and got response, but don’t care about it now?
Yep, the original idea is to ask which version of Box2D to integrate. But leave the developer to integrate Box2D is a better way, it is more convenient, you don’t have to wait Engine to update it, you can do everything you want. So we can use a better way if there has.
You created a problem. All was fine with Box2D before.
I was able to update it and don’t have to wait! About what are you talking actually? It’s not a statement even. Wait for what?
Box2D is in external folder and I can easily replace it. What should I wait if engine not using it?
Just, revert back to Box2D source and include it as it was before. Done.
The building speed is slow, and it always exceed the travis building time limit, so i will use prebuilt 3rd party libraries as possible. cocos2d-x doesn’t depends on Box2D, so it is good to remove it or use prebuilt version.
Ok, lets mark this resolved. Developers can upgrade/change versions of Box2D on their own. If this becomes an issue in the future we can re-visit this topic.
If there is any feedback, please contact me directly via PM.
I haven’t noticed that cocos2d-x depends on Box2D, so i can not remove it. The voting result seems more developers want to use latest commit, and Box2D author doesn’t reply me when he will release a new version. So i will change to use latest commit.
that will make @anon98020523 enjoy his weekend now 
Perhaps he will have some vodka and celebrate! For me, wine.
1 Like