Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
Durk On Wednesday 12 December 2007 08:24, Brian Schack wrote: I have a patch, previously submitted for atlas.cxx (see the November 29 posting, Bug in atlas.cxx), but it still hasn't been committed. Could someone please make the change? I appreciate that everyone is really busy, but making the fix would help a lot. Durk Okay, done. At least for the plib branch. Will port to the Durk OSG branch later. Many thanks! Brian -- Brian Schack 19 Xǔchāng Street 2Fphone: 2381 4727 Taipei 100 fax:2381 2145 TAIWAN - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
Durk Sent: 11 December 2007 19:16 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update On Tuesday 11 December 2007 14:48, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Durk Talsma -- Tuesday 11 December 2007: As it looks right now, either tonight, or Thursday evening will be my two windows of opportunity this week. I would rather go for Thursday, then. It's only known for a short time which aircraft are planned to go in, and even today and yesterday there were commits made to them. I could imagine that some want to make some last fixes and improvements. A release number of 1.0 may not mean much to some people here, but it *does* mean something for a lot of the people out there, and I expect a lot more attention to a FlightGear v1.0 release than to a 0.9.11 one. We might get more reviews in more important places, and it can't hurt to polish some more. (And I committed a code change yesterday that could still turn out to have broken something. It would be a disaster if we had to release 1.1 a week after 1.0. :-) Okay, since I've gotten a few requests to roll up the tar files on Thursday, let's do that. I usually try to make sure that I'm around for a little while after a major commit, in case something goes wrong. Therefore, I will commit all the required changes to make the release happen today (makefile, and configure stuff), but wait with tagging CVS and rolling up the tar files on Thursday. I've just updated the Seahawk in preparation for the release, and noticed a couple of thing: 1. Nav-lights seem to be broken across MP. I haven't been able to fix it, but I note that in multiplaymgr.cxx it's a float, but everywhere else it's a bool. I don't know if this is the cause, but anyway I've put a workaround into the Seahawk. 2. I still have stepping clouds here on start-up or when changing weather scenarios. The fix is trivial - I've worked with Tim Moore on a patch. Finally, I still get a crash if FG runs long enough. It _seems_ as if this can be avoided if I disable Traffic Manager, but it might just be hastening the inevitable end. Regards Vivian - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Vivian Meazza wrote: I've just updated the Seahawk in preparation for the release, and noticed a couple of thing: 1. Nav-lights seem to be broken across MP. I haven't been able to fix it, but I note that in multiplaymgr.cxx it's a float, but everywhere else it's a bool. I don't know if this is the cause, but anyway I've put a workaround into the Seahawk. Hi, I'm pretty sure the types have to match for the property to be sent over MP. If most aircraft use bool for nav lights it is probably a good idea to change the type in multiplaymgr.cxx. (Bool does sound more logical to me, but none of my aircraft include proper nav lights yet so I don't know much about these.. :) /Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/JSBSim-LTA/ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
Anders Gidenstam Sent: 12 December 2007 14:59 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Vivian Meazza wrote: I've just updated the Seahawk in preparation for the release, and noticed a couple of thing: 1. Nav-lights seem to be broken across MP. I haven't been able to fix it, but I note that in multiplaymgr.cxx it's a float, but everywhere else it's a bool. I don't know if this is the cause, but anyway I've put a workaround into the Seahawk. Hi, I'm pretty sure the types have to match for the property to be sent over MP. If most aircraft use bool for nav lights it is probably a good idea to change the type in multiplaymgr.cxx. (Bool does sound more logical to me, but none of my aircraft include proper nav lights yet so I don't know much about these.. :) Yes, I think that's the case, but I've changed the type in multiplaymgr.cxx to bool, and that doesn't fix it. I'm not sure what to do next. Vivian - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
* Durk Talsma -- Tuesday 11 December 2007: As it looks right now, either tonight, or Thursday evening will be my two windows of opportunity this week. I would rather go for Thursday, then. It's only known for a short time which aircraft are planned to go in, and even today and yesterday there were commits made to them. I could imagine that some want to make some last fixes and improvements. A release number of 1.0 may not mean much to some people here, but it *does* mean something for a lot of the people out there, and I expect a lot more attention to a FlightGear v1.0 release than to a 0.9.11 one. We might get more reviews in more important places, and it can't hurt to polish some more. (And I committed a code change yesterday that could still turn out to have broken something. It would be a disaster if we had to release 1.1 a week after 1.0. :-) m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
On mar 11 décembre 2007, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Durk Talsma -- Tuesday 11 December 2007: As it looks right now, either tonight, or Thursday evening will be my two windows of opportunity this week. I would rather go for Thursday, then. It's only known for a short time which aircraft are planned to go in, and even today and yesterday there were commits made to them. I could imagine that some want to make some last fixes and improvements. A release number of 1.0 may not mean much to some people here, but it *does* mean something for a lot of the people out there, and I expect a lot more attention to a FlightGear v1.0 release than to a 0.9.11 one. We might get more reviews in more important places, and it can't hurt to polish some more. (And I committed a code change yesterday that could still turn out to have broken something. It would be a disaster if we had to release 1.1 a week after 1.0. :-) m. Why don't we give us the End of that Year to test fully the release ? That period being more relax. Won't it be a nice new Gift to have a perfect FlightGear 1.0 by the next year ? Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ Less i work, better i go - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
Melchior wrote: -Original Message- Sent: 11 December 2007 13:49 Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update * Durk Talsma -- Tuesday 11 December 2007: As it looks right now, either tonight, or Thursday evening will be my two windows of opportunity this week. I would rather go for Thursday, then. It's only known for a short time which aircraft are planned to go in, and even today and yesterday there were commits made to them. I could imagine that some want to make some last fixes and improvements. A release number of 1.0 may not mean much to some people here, but it *does* mean something for a lot of the people out there, and I expect a lot more attention to a FlightGear v1.0 release than to a 0.9.11 one. We might get more reviews in more important places, and it can't hurt to polish some more. (And I committed a code change yesterday that could still turn out to have broken something. It would be a disaster if we had to release 1.1 a week after 1.0. :-) I still have some tinkering to do on the Seahawk, since it's the first time this has appeared in the base package - Thursday please. Vivian - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 14:48, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Durk Talsma -- Tuesday 11 December 2007: As it looks right now, either tonight, or Thursday evening will be my two windows of opportunity this week. I would rather go for Thursday, then. It's only known for a short time which aircraft are planned to go in, and even today and yesterday there were commits made to them. I could imagine that some want to make some last fixes and improvements. A release number of 1.0 may not mean much to some people here, but it *does* mean something for a lot of the people out there, and I expect a lot more attention to a FlightGear v1.0 release than to a 0.9.11 one. We might get more reviews in more important places, and it can't hurt to polish some more. (And I committed a code change yesterday that could still turn out to have broken something. It would be a disaster if we had to release 1.1 a week after 1.0. :-) Okay, since I've gotten a few requests to roll up the tar files on Thursday, let's do that. I usually try to make sure that I'm around for a little while after a major commit, in case something goes wrong. Therefore, I will commit all the required changes to make the release happen today (makefile, and configure stuff), but wait with tagging CVS and rolling up the tar files on Thursday. Cheers, Durk - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 04:26, Durk Talsma wrote: Durk As it looks right now, either tonight, or Thursday evening Durk will be my two windows of opportunity this week. As a matter Durk of fact, I just did the dress rehearsal build and install Durk for the upcoming 1.0 release. Since everything is proceeding Durk according to plan, I could probably push the rehearsal build Durk onto the web, but I'd like to give a little more opportunity Durk to get last minute patches in. I have a patch, previously submitted for atlas.cxx (see the November 29 posting, Bug in atlas.cxx), but it still hasn't been committed. Could someone please make the change? I appreciate that everyone is really busy, but making the fix would help a lot. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Schack 19 Xǔchāng Street 2Fphone: 2381 4727 Taipei 100 fax:2381 2145 TAIWAN - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Release update
On Monday 10 December 2007 04:26, Curtis Olson wrote: Durk is planning to roll up the official source/data tar balls for the next release sometime this week. As it looks right now, either tonight, or Thursday evening will be my two windows of opportunity this week. As a matter of fact, I just did the dress rehearsal build and install for the upcoming 1.0 release. Since everything is proceeding according to plan, I could probably push the rehearsal build onto the web, but I'd like to give a little more opportunity to get last minute patches in. I have a strong preference to complete building the tar files tonight, because I'm out of town on the weekend (Friday and Saturday), and probably not much in reach of email. So if there are any remaining patches, please try to get them in before 9:00 PM Central European Time (3:00PM eastern USA), so I can start building the final version then. We had a great debate about version numbers and I don't want to spend too much time summarizing that thread, but what I took away from it is that there is a variety of opinions and no general consensus. My desire is to call this v1.0 and by my reading, there were at least as many posters that supported a v1.0 as supported any of the other options. Certainly there were many other good ideas and many good supporting logic for those ideas, but at some point we have to make a choice and go with it. Which reminds me of a related topic, which we actually never discussed: What do we do with SimGear's version number? I need to change it to something, because we can't leave it at 0.3.11-pre2. Traditionally, simgear version numbers are synchronized with FlightGear. If FlightGear goes to 1.0, simgear could move to 0.4.0. However, this could also be a good opportunity to fully synchronize SimGear's version number. I.e. also make it 1.0.0 The latter would be my preference. Cheers, Durk - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Release update
I will be out of town this upcoming week (Dec 10-14) so I'd like to send out a quick email before I go. I am going to be doing open-ocean over water flight testing of a UAV project I've been involved with. NOAA is the customer and the goal is to use this system to find ocean debris (such as ghost nets) and possibly use it to do endangered species surveys in remote, hard to reach areas. One way or another, I suspect I'll come back with at least a few stories! Durk is planning to roll up the official source/data tar balls for the next release sometime this week. Hopefully the Mac/Windows packagers can jump on this soon after the release is finalized and get binary versions ready to go for those respective platforms. And certainly, the linux, freebsd, solaris, and sgi crowd can also be packinging up this version too. When I return, hopefully everything will be ready so that I can post all the files to the official locations, make an official announcement, and do all the other remaining details for the release. We had a great debate about version numbers and I don't want to spend too much time summarizing that thread, but what I took away from it is that there is a variety of opinions and no general consensus. My desire is to call this v1.0 and by my reading, there were at least as many posters that supported a v1.0 as supported any of the other options. Certainly there were many other good ideas and many good supporting logic for those ideas, but at some point we have to make a choice and go with it. I hope to have at least some time in the evenings to check email, but I don't anticipate a lot of time for responding or dealing with complicated questions or issues. Best regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
