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
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
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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
