* gerard robin -- Saturday 28 March 2009: > => it is the consequence of a lot of aggressives behaviour against > me ( not my work) coming mainly from the French side, like this,
So it's not me, then? Great! (Yeah, "Franz" comes from Latin "franciscus" -- the French one, but that doesn't actually apply in my case. ;-) > And, along some others mails, chats, forums,.... the desire ( with > insults ) said to get me out from FG. OK, here I'm a bit guilty: I was *very* p*ssed after the F-8E incident. After all, I had some work with applying patches/committing it etc. I made a few times clear on IRC that I consider someone who withdraws an Open Source contribution not on the same level as a non-contributor, but rather a few levels lower. Pulling out is one thing, but asking gifts back is disgusting. Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned. But this was all "forgotten" after you had become a valuable fgfs developer, who has contributed some of the nicest aircraft. > The last event on that mailing list was "the straw that broke the > camel's back". I assume you refer to the new Nasal tanker, and that it doesn't show up on the primitive AI "radar". I explained why it doesn't -- because this would have required that the tanker does radar work to support a deprecated technology. There is a better and more realistic radar instrument available, which is supported and constantly improved. You could just have switched to that, rather than clinging to the game-like radar. But, nevertheless: I had offered to write a Nasal module that would add the missing support for tanker.nas *and* would have kept all users of the AI-"radar" working forever. You didn't even bother to reply to this posting. I had also said that there are no plans to remove the AI-"radar" yet -- just that it *should* be done at some time. Could be in a year, or in five years. Or after all models have been converted to use a *real* radar instrument. So, pretending that this was the ultimate reason why you pull out is a bit unfair. But I understand that blaming it on someone who you don't like, anyway, is much more convenient, and has a nice (in your opinion) side effect. But contrast the (passive) non-support of an old feature by a *new* feature to the *active* boycott of wildfire by you. And not just once: after you had been criticized for that in the F-8E, you quickly committed the same to the Catalina. That's what I call throwing a tantrum! And the irony: the Catalina is actually used for fire-fighting in the real world and would profit from this feature. Oh, well ... double standards! > I committed again ( september 2008 ) the F-8E, not the "Dubbed for > French Only F4U-7" ( was said here, =>no duplicate models<=) when > the JSBSim <external_reactions> had been officially usable. Here's another of your "truth issues". You keep repeating this, just as I keep correcting it. And so I do again: Yes, I had said at one time that people should avoid committing duplicates, and that one SR71 in CVS is enough. (Sorry, I can't find a link to that.) But later I clarified (in response to one of *your* emails): * Melchior FRANZ (http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg18109.html) | Well, I said at some time that duplicating aircraft should be avoided. | But Curt noted that he has no problem with that, so it's OK. Also, | back then, it was a special situation: your better SR71 was already | in CVS, and someone rushed his (inferior) version in, right after | he had gotten CVS write permission. This was totally pointless | and annoying. ... to which *you* replied: * Gerard ROBIN (http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg18136.html) | Yes, however, i guess that my best rule, is to avoid to commit any | aircraft which could be yet there in CVS. So it was no longer *my*, let alone an *official* point of view that no duplicates should be made, but *your* private decision, despite the more liberal official view! Yet, here you falsely claim again that duplicates aren't welcomed: * Gerard ROBIN (http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2450) | Unfortunately, these works won't be committed to FG CVS, since, there is | a rule, NO DUPLICATE model within FG. [...] * AJ (same thread): | Hi grtux... where did you find this "No duplicate model" rule in FG? * Gerard ROBIN (same thread): | Probably, you never got flame, about it, i did :( | However there was some talk about it on the Mail-devel, i won't give you | the name of the persons who are defending that rule, you may easily find | it by yourself. * Melchior FRANZ | Do you really have such a bad memory? Or are you intentionally lying? | I responded to you only a few weeks ago: | http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg18109.html ... and that's where the self-proclaimed forum police jumped on me for using the L-word (and which is why I pulled out of the forum -- I don't really need (clueless) language police. :-P In other words: the whole reasoning for pulling out is rather bogus and IMHO not entirely honest. (BTW: some of the aircraft are based on GPL'ed files, so adding a no-sell clause is copyright infringment!) m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
