On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 15:24 +0200, grth_team wrote:
FG 2.4 consistency.
Hello,
You don't know us since we are newbee, (3 months working seriously
with FG).
We are a team ( 4 guys and a lady ).
We have had several talks with several devel team persons about a
Catalina model update.
Erik wrote
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 15:24 +0200, grth_team wrote:
FG 2.4 consistency.
Hello,
You don't know us since we are newbee, (3 months working seriously
with FG).
We are a team ( 4 guys and a lady ).
We have had several talks with several devel team persons about a
FG 2.4 consistency.
Hello,
You don't know us since we are newbee, (3 months working seriously
with FG).
We are a team ( 4 guys and a lady ).
We have had several talks with several devel team persons about a
Catalina model update.
That update has been rejected arguing that everything is
grth_team wrote:
How are you walking ? on the head ? since you reverse the priority.
The answer from these devel team persons, was a joke, at least to us,
I think this flavour of 'feedback' is not worth discussing.
Cheers,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Martin Spott wrote:
grth_team wrote:
How are you walking ? on the head ? since you reverse the priority.
The answer from these devel team persons, was a joke, at least to us,
I think this flavour of 'feedback' is not worth discussing.
Martin, I suspect that there is
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:24 PM, grth_team wrote:
The answer from these devel team persons, was a joke, at least to us,
they said we will include your project with FG 2.6 ( February ?),
they probably make fun of us ( do you consider newbee are not serious
?).
As one of the people who
, July 13, 2011 2:24 PM
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] FG 2.4 consistency
FG 2.4 consistency.
Hello,
You don't know us since we are newbee, (3 months working seriously
with FG).
We are a team ( 4 guys and a lady ).
We have had several talks
Am 13.07.2011 19:00, schrieb Curtis Olson:
I think Gene put it well. We need to give them the benefit of the doubt
and cut them some slack due to potential language/translation issues and
if they are newer to the project they need some time to figure out our
project culture and how things get
Also, as we are so often told that git can do everything, why can a
post-release branch not be set up for new source code developments, or a new
release/freeze branch specifically for the new release? I thought that was
the whole raison-d´etre of the devel branch.
You certainly can do that -
Curtis Olson wrote:
I think Gene put it well. We need to give them the benefit of the doubt and
cut them some slack due to potential language/translation issues [...]
Sure, I doubt that this is a translation issue here: Does it strip the
affront off an affront just by passing it through a
Every road runs in two directions, and if we are all willing to go a little
bit beyond half way to meet each other, we most often will get there.
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Martin Spott wrote:
Curtis Olson wrote:
I think Gene put it well. We need to give them the benefit of the doubt
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 3:24 PM, grth_team grtht...@gmail.com wrote:
We have learnt we must not contribute to GPL update within FG, since
the FG team answers does not convince us to contribute, we do not want
to waste time.
To please to the users, our model will be ever checked against an FG
The nice thing about FlightGear is freedom. The grth_team is free to do
what they wish. They can develop what ever they want and they can support
whichever versions they deem best as long as they abide by the terms of the
gpl. It might take some time to realize this, but it is very hard to
13 matches
Mail list logo
