I don't think there should be any user documentation in the development wiki.
The wiki is for developers, the manual for users. I think the documentation for all types of add-ons should be together and in the manual.

hi, I would like to add that we could/can do this:
Official addons only to have Manual Pages, there could be exceptions to this, but I think it's a good general rule.
Community Addons to have direct link wiki pages as was the previous behavior. 1 Main "Catalog" page with the current and updated list of addons included in Release only.
We first started this system of addons documentation in the 2.4 series, rebuilt and improved for 2.5/6 series. At the end of the day, https://archive.blender.org/wiki/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/ was one of the most popular wiki pages visited. I think we could continue with this for 2.8 series. Only devs with commit status would be allowed to edit the wiki after gaining permissions. There's plenty of good sites listing and documenting external addons already.

In T67111#725393, @Philipp Oeser (lichtwerk) wrote:

Seems to be fine here on linux...

You need to upgrade addon. This bug has been fixed https://developer.blender.org/rBAea0873dedaa1b81e706bad49ed7997cdf11d5ec1

Duplicated

While Trying to use sapling tree gen it is showing error like this

Yeah, it's the requests library that has infinity as the default timeout setting. So you will see a timeout, but only if you wait for infinity.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. So I assume I'm going to place the add-on docs in manual/addons/.
Is any action required in order to close this issue then?
Do you need any help communicating to all core add-ons developers that documentation should be migrated to the manual?

The decision was to document add-ons in the Blender manual, not the wiki.

As we are approaching Blender 2.80 release, I'd like to get final confirmation that for the time being add-ons shipped with Blender will be documented on the Blender Wiki. Personally, I want to make sure that the presentation of Blender ID and Blender Cloud add-ons is sufficiently polished and up-to-date.

Good that there are other reports. Note that I didn't see absolutely any output on the terminal, though.
I did check, there was nothing.

Ok I provide all the file info in a zip
I try to put into the description all the problem.
I will edit better text next day.

This seems an easy thing to fix, replacing the scene.render.layers with scene.render.views as follows:

I was able to isolate the file containing the mesh but not the workflow. Please be patient.

note, I've put up the full version you made with all my ui fixes here: https://github.com/meta-androcto/blenderpython

hi, I'll check again. I was using your minimum version of crackit with the version of cell fracture provided with Blender . Also using a nightly build not rc release. I see now where my confusion arises. I was looking for the behavior you added in the full new version which is much more desired. A fix if there is one would be to have the minimum version of crackit for 2.8 work on all selected objects?

Zipped file, cleaned up code, works across all node editors afaict.

fixed in nightly builds

Closed due to missing information.

A bit of googling suggests 3D coat Applink is a 3rd party product.
Contact them for any problems.

Unless maybe if you want to physically simulate the pitch drop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment, my guess is the values available with an exponent of zero are likely more than sufficient.

ah, sorry, missed the tooltip. Can you tell me why that decision was made? I presume that will be confusing for materials with high viscosity (ketchup/honey/pitch/etc)

Oops, @Antonio Vazquez (antoniov) was quicker...

Thanx for trusting us more :)
That error looks like a 2.79 version of the Addon? [or the Addon hasnt been upgraded to 2.8 fully...]

As this is not a bug, I think we can close it now.

IIRC, this add-on is not officially supported, so you need contact with the add-on developer to get support.

I already send mail to the provider. but I expected a response perhaps faster by this means.

You should contact the provider of the addon for a version compatible with the current 2.80.

If you read the tooltip, it appears that the Exponent value is already taken as a negative value, so entry of a positive 3 should get you the behavior you describe I think.

I'm working hard trying to reproduce the problem for 2 days. Please be patient I will replay as soon as I get the correct mesh example.

I can't reproduce this locally either, but it's been reported before (T66125).