On Nov 30, 2007 1:23 AM, Melchior FRANZ <> wrote:
> The problem that I have/had is that you don't say it openly, when you
> make such a decision -- that you will call it 1.0, which aircraft it
> will contain etc. All we got was a cryptic hint with tongue in cheek,
> instead of an "I will make the next release 1.0, because ... (And while
> you can, of course, discuss it, it's already decided."). It's only
> in private messages where one gets some more info.
I'm just a little surpised that the version number is such a contentious
issue. It seems like there are more important battles to fight. How about
we at least agree to skip 0.9.11 out of sensitivity to a very large group of
people.
I have no problems whatsoever with commercial use (as you know from
> my private mails), or that it occasionally brings you projects and money.
> On the contrary. I welcome that. And I would understand if this is
> involved in the decisions to name the release 1.0. ("The companies
> don't like it much that the version number implies that fgfs is still
> immature beta quality software.") I'd just like to know that/when
> this is the reason. Don't forget: this is *our* collective work, not
> only yours. And I think we deserve some basic information.
The company I work with has no idea what the version number of flightgear is
... they leave all that to me and do not care. This company's customers
want an FAA certified sim. They also do not care what the version number
string of FlightGear is. You have constructed a problem in your imagination
and then are upset with me for not coming clean on it.
No. I don't even care that much, even if is seems so. For me a version
> 1.0 means that the software is basically feature complete. Of course it
> will never be finished (this would be sad -- we could all go home).
> And I think that lights are missing. But well, let's release it as 1.0
> without lights. Fine with me. (Maybe we'd end up with 0.9.23 if we
> really wait for lights. Waiting for something doesn't get anything
> done, anyway. ;-)
Well that's maybe the point. I'll be 80 years old and we'll still be at
0.9.xxx, and maybe we'll have your landing lights by then, or maybe we
won't.
To me a < 1.0 version number means something that's not quite ready for
general consumption, or we think there are major holes or major problems and
are holding back. Sure we haven't finished every feature in the flight sim
play book, but let's let the world know that we have something serious here.
See first paragraph: I hate that we *don't* have such discussions.
> Or such information. Now we know at least[1]: the next release will
> be 1.0, and it's because you think it's high time after such a long
> time. OK, all questions answered. Thanks. No surprises when the
> release comes out. (Developers should never be surprised by the
> release of their own work. :-)
It seems to me that we are discussing the issue right now, but we are in
danger of getting side tracked. Maybe we should put it out to a vote?
We've only had a few people weigh in here, which likely means the rest of
the developers don't care, or it's not a battle they think is worth
fighting.
Regards,
Curt.
--
Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/
Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
