As a general rule, when somebody says "please be more specific" you should consider the possibility that what they really mean is "please be more specific".
Nobody called anybody a liar; all that was said was "please be more specific". On 01/02/2007 01:50 PM, Roy Vegard Ovesen wrote: > It's not in the source tree, but in the data tree: > > http://cvs.flightgear.org/cgi-bin/viewvc/viewvc.cgi/data/gui/dialogs/?pathrev=HEAD OK! That's exactly the sort of additional specificity that was needed. Thanks. > Another rule of thumb when developing and when updating from CVS is to keep > both source _and_ data up-to-date. That's a good rule. Perhaps somebody should update http://www.flightgear.org/Downloads/source.shtml to incorporate that bit of wisdom. Right now the bleeding-edge tarball only includes the source tree. For that matter, cvs tarballs defeat one of the good features of cvs, namely incremental updates. Suggestion: next to the tarball URL, put a sentence suggesting that folks who are able to use cvs might be better off doing so. ==================================================== On a related note, can anybody explain why the searches http://www.google.com/search?q=stopwatch.xml+site:flightgear.com http://www.google.com/search?q=stopwatch.xml+site:sf.net and http://www.google.com/custom?client=pub-2485404446552133&domains=flightgear.org&q=stopwatch.xml&sitesearch=flightgear.org return no hits at all? Similarly, the search http://www.google.com/search?q=stopwatch.xml+flightgear returns a few hits, but nothing that ordinary users will find easy to interpret. I'm trying to make the point that not-entirely-stupid people exercising reasonable amounts of diligence find it sometimes difficult or impossible to find FlightGear information, even when the existence is known. Perhaps some attention should be paid to the searchability of the places where authoritative information can be found. Sometimes a very small tweak in a robots.txt file (or some such) can make a very large improvement in the user experience. Whether or not such a structural change is possible, a procedural approach might be helpful. For example, when committing something new to CVS, it would be helpful to post some sort of "advertisement" to the mailing lists. An entry in the CVS log that says "stopwatch.xml" is not nearly as useful as a message saying what it is, why we should care, how to find usage examples, et cetera. As a measure of my sincerity, you may observe that I posted such a message about my hackish interval timer. I even put multiple synonyms in the subject line, so that would-be users would not have to play the Rumplestiltskin game to guess what the thing is called. ============================== As another category of data supporting the same general point, according to http://www.google.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:flightgear.org there are 1700 places on the flightgear.org site that refer to the wrong mailing list (flightgear-devel@flightgear.org). There are also numerous places in the man pages of the distributed package that direct users to the wrong list. Suggestion 1: Perhaps somebody should walk through the whole project workspace and replace each occurrence of the wrong address with the right address. Also: I observe that mail to the wrong list gets bounced with a completely _uninformative_ error message. Suggestion 2: The wrong list still exists. IMHO it should continue to exist ... but the bounce message should be made muuuch more informative. It should direct users to the correct list. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
