Hi, * Tatsuhiro Nishioka -- Saturday 03 February 2007: * > On Feb 2, 2007, at 2:18 AM, Melchior FRANZ wrote: > Ah, it doesn't mean I don't have to fix it, but means I should > implement the canopy soon.
I didn't mean to complain about the canopy animation. The patch was just a suggestion how to fix some minor problems. > Yes, I'm also worried about putting code spreading all over the place > in CVS. It's no good. > I included the same code since each archived file should be > independent from others that are not included in the base package. Yes, of course. Such code can't be generalized, it needs to be repeated in aircraft that need it. I found it only funny that broken code infects several aircraft so quickly. > The problem here is that I should have not given the package to you > as it was. > I should have known what I should do and I should not do before that. No, no, no. That was fine. Code doesn't need to be perfect when it's getting added to CVS. Heck, it doesn't need to be and become perfect at all. CVS isn't storage for finished projects, it's working space. We often add half-done aircraft to CVS and they are worked on and improved as the author submits fixes and grow with the project. > Okay, I understand another convention. > "Do not write any code only for the backward-compatibility reason." > I'll fix this immediately. Not exactly. But CVS/HEAD (sg, fg, data) is what's going to become the next release, and all parts of it should be developed in parallel and adopt new, improved ways of doing things, new features, etc. None of the parts should be frozen and reject new features only to remain compatible with past releases. CVS has such a frozen state already: it's the tags. Check out with -rRELEASE_0_9_10 and you *have* the compatibility and everything fits together (more or less :-). Aircraft added after the last release are supposed to become compatible with the *next* release. If you want to make the Ki-84' COMPAT_0_9_10 branchlet really compatible with 0.9.10, then please submit patches for that. But don't limit your possibilities by trying to make HEAD compatible with 0.9.10. > - including A6M2/electrical.nas from each -set.xml for both Ki-84 and > J7W. Bad idea. Fixing the bugs in each is the way to go. > - using fdm_initialized singal to start the updates() func. That's also not what I meant to say. Do it like you want, using that signal or not. Just make your decisions based on the next release, not on the last. The last one is history. And now I'll stop (for a while :-) to comment on aircraft commits and submissions and to fight for consistency within fgfs. This always gets me into hot water, and most of the time I'm on my own. m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
