Sorry to be annoying yet again, but that's what I'm best at:
* Erik Hofman -- Saturday 17 December 2005 10:48: > I must say I like the idea, but given it's current state (no windows > support) I would like to postpone it until after FlightGear 1.0 is released. And I would like to postpone the 1.0 release, until FlightGear is ready to be called 1.0. Saving GUI states is one piece of that puzzle, as are landing/taxi lights. There are no finished patches available for that yet? So? What keeps "us" from working on them and waiting until they are finished? (No, I won't be working on that, but I'm also not pressing for 1.0.) Either the 1.0 number means anything, then fgfs better be complete. Or it doesn't mean anything, then let's release it when it's done and call the next releases 0.9.10++. Or is there a compelling reason to rush out 1.0 *now*? One that we aren't told for whatever reason? Does anyone pay for it whose business depends on it? (MathWorks?) Or is it that fgfs needs for some reason to be called 1.0.0 for SCALE 2006? And why? Other reasons? Do we deserve to know about them? Doesn't look like it. I'm now sufficiently fed up with the secret 1.0 agenda, that I'll stop contributing until after this monstrosity is out. m. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
