Stefan Seifert wrote:
Also nice would be any review of the code :) and of course some info
about how the chances are for inclusion.
I must say I like the idea, but given it's current state (no windows
support) I would like to postpone it until after FlightGear 1.0 is released.
There are a
Erik Hofman wrote :
Stefan Seifert wrote:
Also nice would be any review of the code :) and of course some info
about how the chances are for inclusion.
I must say I like the idea, but given it's current state (no windows
support) I would like to postpone it until after FlightGear 1.0 is
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
What is missing for windows ?
Stefan Seifert wrote:
Missing is support for Windows, where the directory should be like %PROFILE%/Application Data/FlightGear (or such). Also I don't know if Windows supports the mkdir function. Would be nice if someone could port.
Erik
Erik Hofman a écrit :
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
What is missing for windows ?
Stefan Seifert wrote:
Missing is support for Windows, where the directory should be like
%PROFILE%/Application Data/FlightGear (or such). Also I don't know if
Windows supports the mkdir function. Would be nice
Hi,
I was thinking, FlightGear is already able to handle way more options
than advertised when running fgfs -h -v
How would we all fell about minimizing the number of command line
options in favor of the --prop:prop=value method and make sure all
of them are explained in a document rather
Sorry to be annoying yet again, but that's what I'm best at:
* Erik Hofman -- Saturday 17 December 2005 10:48:
I must say I like the idea, but given it's current state (no windows
support) I would like to postpone it until after FlightGear 1.0 is released.
And I would like to postpone the
Erik Hofman a écrit :
Hi,
I was thinking, FlightGear is already able to handle way more options
than advertised when running fgfs -h -v
How would we all fell about minimizing the number of command line
options in favor of the --prop:prop=value method and make sure all
of them are
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Sorry to be annoying yet again, but that's what I'm best at:
* Erik Hofman -- Saturday 17 December 2005 10:48:
I must say I like the idea, but given it's current state (no windows
support) I would like to postpone it until after FlightGear 1.0 is released.
And I would
Frederic Bouvier wrote:
I don't see the real benefit of this naming change. I rather see the
burden of changing fgrun. And there are options that are not reduced to
a property assignment.
True, those should be kept. But the main reason I started this was because:
1. We have at least two
Erik Hofman wrote:
Lighten up, I just started looking at this patch since Fred promised
to fill in the missing gaps.
I just noticed, that this patch could break compilation, since in
sg_patch.cxx the new method is called makeDir and in the header it's
still makedir. I know, I should always
Stefan Seifert wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Lighten up, I just started looking at this patch since Fred promised
to fill in the missing gaps.
I just noticed, that this patch could break compilation, since in
sg_patch.cxx the new method is called makeDir and in the header it's
still makedir. I
Erik Hofman wrote:
I noticed this already. I think I like it to be called create()
instead, but that's a different matter.
Maybe createDir? Because it's a member of SGPath which may as well be
the path to a file. So it'd be confusing if path_to_a_file.create()
created a directory.
I
Warning: long append
The problem with help on mac os x (possibly other platforms) --
http://mail.flightgear.org/pipermail/flightgear-devel/2005-November/
040462.html -- is still occurring.
somehow something is switching /sim/startup/browser-app from open
after it is set in
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Either the 1.0 number means anything, then fgfs better be complete.
Or it doesn't mean anything, then let's release it when it's done
and call the next releases 0.9.10++.
Or is there a compelling reason to rush out 1.0 *now*? One that we
aren't told for whatever reason?
On Saturday 17 December 2005 16:10, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Maybe we should drop the arbitrary version numbering scheme (and I do
see the version numbers as 99.9.9% arbitrary) and go with code names for
our releases. Would that make people happier?
Curt.
No what would make us more happy is
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Saturday 17 December 2005 13:40, Erik Hofman wrote:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Sorry to be annoying yet again, but that's what I'm best at:
* Erik Hofman -- Saturday 17 December 2005 10:48:
I must say I like the idea, but given it's current state (no windows
Paul Surgeon wrote:
No what would make us more happy is to know why there is such an urgency to
have two FG releases in the space of a couple of months when up till now
we've been releasing about once per year.
What has prompted this change?
This decision didn't involve the developers at
Erik Hofman wrote:
How would we all fell about minimizing the number of command line
options in favor of the --prop:prop=value method and make sure all
of them are explained in a document rather than the help message.
I see three reasons opposing this idea:
1.) I'm not sure but I assume you
Well, I wasn't going to way-in until someone mentioned Scale and Mathworks.
Just to set the record straight, for the 747 we'll be using FG-0.9.8
modified to handle all the 747 subsystems, engine models, synthetic
voice, etc, etc. All the source files were provided to the primary
authors,
On Saturday 17 December 2005 11:40, Erik Hofman wrote:
Lighten up, I just started looking at this patch since Fred promised to
fill in the missing gaps.
I was delighted to see a form of the options saving patches going into CVS,
since I've been using the earlier versions with no troubles at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Spott schrieb:
I see three reasons opposing this idea:
1.) I'm not sure but I assume you can't use : inside a command line
option on certain platforms (Windows).
I really can't imagine any problems that it might cause under windows
AJ MacLeod wrote:
I really hope this is made to work at least as well as the earlier patches
because I think it's a _great_ feature and one that makes life with FG that
little bit more pleasant...
Yeah well, I was trying to outsmarten myself, and got hit in the back.
It took me way longer
I guess what Curt was saying is, him being the release manager of
the project, has to find appropriate and free time do all the things for
a release, which is fair enough and understandable.
Perhaps we can have more people to help doing a release? Personally
I've only witnessed one
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Saturday 17 December 2005 13:40, Erik Hofman wrote:
What's this, now you want releases that have missing options for some
OS'es??
No, that's not what Melchior implied or said at all.
What he said is that he would prefer if we hold off with ANY 1.0 release
until
Hi All
What a storm in a tea cup I could not care less what the next
release is called but it would appear that the sooner it is called
1.0 the sooner we can all get on with our lives.
Maybe we should just call the current version of FG
FLIGHTGEAR-NOW and all the past versions FLIGHTGEAR-THEN
25 matches
Mail list logo
