Martin van Beilen writes: > > sorry, but I can't understand that. I don't know why you try to > > do multiple work instead of working together and increasing the > > output. > > That puzzled me too. It seems to me that fgfs has some (a lot of?) > 'orphaned' features. The problem is that the code is there, but > there's no way to activate these features, and no documentation.
That's right -- I think we have to be stricter about not accepting unintegrated code and about cleaning out code that's not being used. We have very, very few active developers on the project, and each of us can concentrate only on a tiny area at once (between bug fixes). Christian's code looks nice, but it has sat mostly unintegrated for one (maybe two) years. So far, I'm adding my code in a separate module and leaving Christian's as the default; you have to configure --with-new-environment to get mine. If mine ends up doing what we need, we'll switch the default and move Christian's code to the attic; otherwise, we'll bug Christian to integrate his code and move mine to the attic. There's nothing personal, either way -- that's just how Open Source works (look at the memory-management wars in the Linux kernel for a more brutal example). > For example, I've found that the code supports multiple cloud > layers with varying degrees of coverage, from FEW to OVC. I'm going to try to pull that in to the new environment module. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
