On Tuesday 18 October 2011 15:56:54 Cedric Sodhi wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 09:46:58PM +0200, Gijs de Rooy wrote: > > Hi all! > > > > > Cedric wrote: > > > ManDay, on behalf of the Split-Team ^^ > > > > > > ThorstenB wrote: > > > I don't think this is what we agreed upon. > > > > I'd like to mention that Cedric did not wrote his email "on my behalf" > > nor on Jorg's. > > Hello, > > I apologize for wrongly inserting the suggestion to dissolve the repos > "on your behalf". I think the other parts of the E-Mail, the description > etc, were very well composed on your behalf, though. > > As for the topic brought up here, I sense a bit of sentimentalism > clouding the technical judgment of some. > > Fact is, that quite a few aircrafts of the old FGDATA are nowadays > developed elsewhere. I recall at least having witnessed this twice, > although I've only tried a few airplanes. If I recall correctly, skyop's > magnificant Bombardier is one of those planes which are developed > launchpad and is only represented in FGDATA-Airplanes for "historical > reasons". > > Regardless, your arguments why a central repository would be an > advantage, minus the sentimental "it has always been like that" parts, > esp. the one about authors joining and leaving, are more or less > orthogonal to the philosophy of the development structure which you > employ: Git and Gitorious. > > A central facility, which collects all planes, yes, that makes sense. > Actually, I see not how such thing could possibly be forgone. But > forcing all aircraft development under the patronage of the core > developers is without any practical footing. > > You are not helping anyone, nor are you supporting GPL. > > If people want to publish under the GPL, they will do so. If not, they > wont. Regardless of whether you coerce them to publish their planes in > your "master-repository", but only as GPL. > > Neither do you provide any more "guarantee" by herding developers into > your central repository. You are only patronizing them. You cannot > guarantee for someone else's property. And if it's not their property for > it's GPL, you can always keep yourself a backup-copy or a clone of their > repository, if you are worried about guarantees. > > Not only are all these alleged advantages pretty much contrived, there > are also disadvantages in urging people to play in your opera rather > than their own. Restrictions are always harmful to voluntary work. If I, > for example, am a LP user and you are trying to lure me "come, come to > us, here is where the good things happen" to your repository, I will > rather turn away - as opposed to an OPEN development structure where > people are encourage to develop whereever, however they want and simply > announce their contribution centrally. > > History has shown what that concept of a centralized "master-repo" has > lead to: A thick jungle of half-finished, unmaintained and completely > abandoned planes, happily mixed with high-quality planes, relicts of > planes which have long been migrated to development elsewhere and > practically everone has lost orientation in your "master-repo". > > This is not how Git works. This is not how modular contribution on open > software works. This is not how Gitorious works. It's most likely > counter productive, as has been the unnavigable jungle of planes in the > first place. > > In a positive creative development structure you leave the contributors > their freedom. > > "Contribute your planes!" rather than "Come to Gitorious, ask for our > permission to get your repository, work under our supervision! Work, > work, my busy bees, and make us planes for our big master-repository!" > > ...to be equally provocative. > > > kind regards, > ManDay >
My own, personal reasons for developing my planes 'elsewhere' and having them migrated into the master repository is because I do not have access to the master repository. I would/will happily migrate all of my aircraft work to fg_aircraft and remove the old repositories if I have commit access to my planes. I think Gjis has the correct sense: if my aircraft is in the master repository, I expect the code developers to take some care that it will not bit-rot because they make a change. If the aircraft is elsewhere, GPL or not, the code developers do not have that obligation. Also, having an aircraft in the "common" repository invites others to join in and make changes. That is how I got started in this whole mess in the first place. $0.02 Thanks, Ron ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
