* Curtis L. Olson -- Wednesday 30 November 2005 14:01: > Melchior FRANZ wrote: > > There was no discussion about this topic on flightgear-devel before > > this order was announced, and every discussion after that was passively > > suppressed by ignoring valid arguments. [...]
> I don't want to passively supress your points, Good. I think that our code is not ready for 1.0, as long as it doesn't implement (A) landing/taxi lights and (B) saving GUI states. (There are others, but these two are the most important.) You think that having release 1.0 *soon* is more important? Is this what we'll see in the ChangeLog for 1.0? Two points? * fixed a few bugs that should really have been fixed in 0.9.9 * JSBSim update; in the *best* case, everything works like before and users won't notice any difference. This won't make headlines, at least no positive ones. Why wasting the 1.0 number and the special attention for a bugfix release that should really be called 0.9.9a or 0.9.9.1? > By giving certain developers cvs write access, [...] ?? I'm trying to discuss the 1.0 release policy that was made off-list and ignored any developer input so far (a.k.a. XFree86 development style or "we want your code, not your opinion"). The cvs access policy has nothing to do with it. To make that clear: I fully respect your leadership! If you say that 1.0 will be released with no new features "because I, Curt, say so", then it's OK. Then we know at least who made the decision and on which technical arguments it's based on. And we know how much time it's worth to spend for this release. m. _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
