I really, really, really want to roll out the FlightGear-0.7.9 release
soon.  I haven't posted an official release time table yet, but I will
do that in this message.

  John Check writes:
  > For sure. Just make sure you guys don't commit any major breakage
  > to CVS this week ;)

  LWCE/New York is this week and as per John's request, perhaps it
  would be a good idea to go slow on a lot of major CVS changes to
  keep from complicating their lives.  However, John, no matter what
  we do, it would be wise to get the latest version running before the
  show starts and just stick with it, warts and all.  Tracking cvs and
  rebuilding the binary on the booth demo machines in the middle of
  the show is just asking for trouble, wierd problems, and "uh ... it
  just was working" or "I don't know why it just did that" type
  moments.  Get a recent version working, and then just stick with it.

So here is my proposed schedule:

Now - Feb 8 (this week and next) is the last chance to submit new
  features for the 0.7.9 version.  Preferably I'd see more bug fixes
  than features in this time.

Feb 9 - Feb 15: Everyone should be building from cvs and the trial
  tarballs and reporting any bugs, build problems and platform
  incompatibilies.  Try it out on your platform and compiler and send
  in bug reports sooner rather than later.  If you don't, and 0.7.9
  has problems on your platform, don't come complaining to me
  afterwards. :-)

Feb 16: Official 0.7.9 release day.

Does this schedule sound reasonable?

My time is very limited these days, but I will do my best to stick to
this timeline.  If everyone agrees, I will go ahead and cast it in
stone.

I will do everything I can to look at and apply everyone's patch
submissions in time.  Also be aware that David Megginson has cvs write
access so you can send reasonable stuff to him as well.  Be aware that
neither of us blindly commit patch submissions and we evaluate your
submission to make sure it fits in the overall scheme of the project.
We try to fix things as much as possible if not, and only reject
patches as a last resort.  This can be a lot of work depending if the
patch submitters send in something that is whipped together quickly,
not thought through very well, or an 'ugly' hack.  And we really
cringe if we see the "I didn't understand what this code over here did
so I removed it" type patches.

Regards,

Curt.
-- 
Curtis Olson   IVLab / HumanFIRST Program       FlightGear Project
Twin Cities    [EMAIL PROTECTED]                  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minnesota      http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt   http://www.flightgear.org

_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel

Reply via email to