On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Stuart Buchanan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:55 PM, leee wrote: > > There is always a risk associated with changing default > > behaviour and the bottom line is that there is no immediate > > need to do so, nor any overhead incurred by not doing so. > > > > This just seems like a commonsense policy to me, and was one of > > the factors that lead to me stopping work on FG. > > > > LeeE > > Would there be any value in searching the aircraft XML files in > CVS to see how many are using the pi-simple-controller ? > > That might provide some idea of how much of an issue this is, > though obviously doesn't address non-CVS aircraft. > > -Stuart
This is exactly the sort of think I'd hope to see at the end of the transition/notification period and just before the default behaviour was changed, so that any outstanding occurrences could be looked into. Like I've already said though, while the new feature is desireable, there is no need to change the current default behaviour because nothing currently depends upon it, and should people wish to use the new feature they can do so without having to worry about changing the places where they have used it when the default behaviour actually is changed. LeeE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
