On 18.10.2011 18:24, Cedric Sodhi wrote: > All aircraft related development shall henceforth be performed on > repositories which are maintained by the respective authors. > > It is planned that most of the repositories on > > https://gitorious.org/flightgear-aircraft > > will be dissolved over time and be taken over by the respective authors. > > On a sidenote, some of those repositories are already superflous because > development has long been moved somewhere else. These are the first > repositories which will be decomissioned.
I don't think this is what we agreed upon. We agreed to split fgdata for technical reasons, to cut it into smaller chunks and make it easier to maintain. With separate repos we can give each author direct commit rights - without requiring full access to the rest of fgdata. But there was no agreed decision to "dissolve" our central community aircraft repository. And personally I think that would be a very, very bad idea to do so. If you look at our aircraft, you'll see the history go way back to the very beginning of FlightGear. Meanwhile, many aircraft developers have joined and left the project. Many private hangars have been created, shutdown, some were lost. The only aircraft which are guaranteed to live on are those in a repository controlled by the FlightGear community. It's not a guarantee forever - but it's a guarantee that is connected to the FlightSim (core / source code) itself - which is what really matters. A community repo has a lot of advantages. When people leave, work isn't lost - maintenance kind of automatically "transfers" to the community. When really necessary, we can also apply patches - i.e. when something about the flight sim itself has to be changed and aircraft really need to be adapted (which we usually try to avoid, of course). A central repo also allowed us to use the bug tracker for aircraft issues. No one is going to work the bug tracker for issues which affect aircraft living in some dodgy private hangar, probably in 8 different versions maintained by 3 different authors - and we're going to see loads of aircraft forks, without an "official" repo. We'd also be seeing fewer GPLed aircraft. So far, we had the strict rule: only GPLed stuff was accepted - which was very good for the project. Without such a central hangar, there is one reason less for GPL. And when the majority of aircraft wasn't GPLed any longer, FlightGear will be much less attractive. And why should someone work on _GPLed_ FG core sources - if the rest isn't? The aircraft in our main repository are worth a lot. It's been there for many, many years and it took many, many hours to create. The aircraft probably account for far more than 50% of the time spent on creating FlightGear. It'd be extremely unfortunate to drop all this from the FG community project. And only being slightly provocative: if splitting FGDATA now turns toward a path of "breaking up" our FG aircraft - I'll rather propose to keep the existing FGDATA. So, before any such major decision affecting the community is made here, I would really like everyone's opinion. Especially Curt's... cheers, Thorsten PS: The old git repo was "only" 4GB in size: 3GB of git history for aircraft, 1GB for the rest. It was looking much bigger of course, once a git branch was checked out - since files were copied into the working directory (doubles the size) and also decompressed (factor >>2). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
