Hi, Thanks Curt,
You wrote half of what I really want to say. As I only wrote one extreme aspect of my thought, Many objections can be expected, but that's OK. Actually I do agree with sharing files because of productivity, ease in fixing bugs, availability of latest functions, etc. however, the different versions of shared files may lead some aircraft to unexpected result. As Curt said, it is a dilemma in sharing vs holding all needed files in each independent package. Both have pros and cons. So here is my real question. How can we take the pros of shared files as well as keeping the robustness currently given only by separating shared files in each aircraft? What I'm doing in developing some Japanese aircraft is storing shared files in one place in a repository, and put these shared files into each package when I release aircraft package. This way, I can release one aircraft as fast as I can. then, I'm going to test another aircraft using the updated shared file after the release. These files can be stored in a shared folder as Melchior said. but now I'm not doing it. that's maybe simply because I don't have a CVS account and don't want to bother you guys for updating my aircraft. But I also want to find some better ways to have both robustness and productivity. I have some broad idea, but it's still kinda hard to realize. A shared file has its own version number in cvs, if each aircraft package has such version number in it, then an aircraft download program can check a compatibility of shared files. If the shared files are not suitable for the aircraft, then it automatically installs some proper files for the aircraft package, probably by exporting one from cvs with version number? Tagging the repository for each aircraft for compatibility is much easier but we have too many tags in cvs. no good. By the way, Melchior's last post also has a point since copied shared files do not tend to be maintained. If all the aircraft are equally well maintained, then all shared files can be safely stored in shared folder, even the base package goes a bit fat. Maybe I'm thinking too much since I want too much? I'm making my jwarbirds work on 0.9.10/0.9.11/CVS-head but it is a time consuming work. I want to make it easier. Best, Tat ----- Original Message ----- > From: Melchior FRANZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Curtis Olson -- Sunday 09 December 2007: > > a change to a common object breaks your aircraft. Newer aircraft > > may not work with older versions of FlightGear that don't have the > > shared pieces you expect. > > Newer aircraft usually don't work with older releases, anyway. There's > too much changing. Aircraft developers who don't want to have their work > in CVS have to live with making their aircraft for a particular release. > Maintained aircraft in CVS don't have the problem at all. > > This copying of generic files is more likely to cause problems. We > still have aircraft around with old copies of fuel.nas and aar.nas. > The generic files are maintained and work, the copies don't. > > m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
