Norman Vine writes: > However I STRONGLY suggest that the first pass is written in > 'pseudo code' and posted to the Net somewhere for Review and > Comment before anything is actually implemented. > > A Wiki would be ideal for this kind of thing :-)
CVS is good for this kind of thing as well. If Jim is having trouble writing the code and needs some help or guidance, of course he is welcome to post pseudo-code, but with CVS, it's normally better just to check in the changes -- that way everyone can review them and test them. If they don't work, we can just roll them back out again (as we have a few times in the last couple of months). We might be approaching a point that we'll need separate stable and development CVS branches. The stable branch should have bug-fixes only, while the development branch can have bleeding-edge new code for people to try out and review. The question is whether Curt's willing to put up with the extra headache of maintaining two branches, and whether people are willing to submit two sets of any bug-fix patches (I'd guess yes for the latter, at least). Of course, that also implies keeping two branches of the base package. Ouch. All the best, David -- David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
