Hi Martin, You make a very good point. All of CVS is development. However many of us are not experts and facile with cutting-edge design and development ( and I include myself in that set ) and are more comfortable working with a stable and proven design and taking small steps. You're absolutely right in that regard, we came to expect that CVS would always work even if it was under *development*. Guess we just got spoiled by all the great work that is done.
I don't have IRC setup on my machine so have no way of knowing what is going over that channel. If all the major and core developers are focused on OSG and the plib branch is quiescent, then that supports my argument of natural selection and I say --- PRESS ON I am particularly interested in the ability to run multiple views from a single application. Opens the possibility to use a dual headed AGP video card, and perhaps a few PCI graphics cards in a single machine and create a complete wrap-around display. Don't know what sort of performance one might expect but it is worth exploring...... John W. >Hi John, > >John Wojnaroski wrote: > > > >>If this had been a commercial development and the product had been >>released in this state, we would all be updating our resumes at this >>point... >> >> > >No doubt. Still the point is: The product is not intended to be >released in this state. In fact, current state is not only not intended >to be released, it's not declared as a release candidate nor as BETA or >ALPHA (or pre-ALPHA, whatever you like), it's simply where current >development is heading for, in other words: a development source tree. >Yes, it actually is this, and nothing more. Please let us keep this >as the basis of the discussion .... at least I'm convinced that this >is fact .... > >People apparently got used to the state that FlightGear typically has a >CVS tree that you can compile at the end of a development day and >'fly'. This usually isn't a bad idea because FlightGear has no such >thing as real quality control before a release. Instead people simply >drop their code, and fixes, into CVS during a so called development >cycle, the most obvious glitches are getting cleared at the end of the >cycle and the result is being shipped as "release". I have been trying >to document ongoing development of FlightGear for a long time, I know >what I'm talking about. > >But does this _necessarily_ have to be this way _all_ the time ? Do >people really have to get into panic when this is not the case for a >short period in a development cycle ? In my eyes this is completely >exaggerated. Other software projects, commercial and OpenSource, stand >much longer distances without having a source tree that matches at >least release candidate level and without users getting into panic in >that time. So why should FlightGear make an exception here ? > >In fact the changes that make the port to OSG are not simply dropped >into CVS and left there alone, instead the remaining issues are >actively being worked on. The "core developer" for this move just >doesn't have the habit to write long EMail postings to the list but >instead to spend the available time for actual coding ;-) > > > >>[...] If OSG is superior in >>performance, ease of development, features, etc then it needs to win >>that argument based on the principal of natural selection. And those >>advocating its selection need to endure the pain of dual paths and >>double work until the existing plib head shrivels and dies from >>user/developer apathy. >> >> > >The question that I have to pose here: Does FlightGear really have the >ressources to maintain two development trees and put "the pain of dual >paths and double work" upon those who really push the development ? >Have a look at the CVS changelog and compare the names you find there >from the past development cycles with the names of those people who are >performing the loudest cries on this list .... and you'll get a very >clear picture. I'd say these people do better by experiencing a bit >more of patience, or, even much better, help with clearing the >remaining issues, if they have the skills to do so. > >Cheers, > Martin. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
