Hi, sorry for the long delay. I guess everybody just hoped that someone else would pick this up -- someone who's more familiar with the code.
Now I intended to apply it locally and to commit it later. It sounds well researched and tested, and resource control means, after all, that one can easily back out changes when unexpected problems turn up, so there's no real danger. However ... * Brian Schack -- Friday 27 March 2009: > SGBucket::set_bucket(double dlon, double dlat) has some bugs, > especially evident at high latitudes. OK, that doesn't sound good, but ... > This makes my set_bucket() differ from the current set_bucket() > for the last two "rows" at the poles, when the bucket span is 8 > degrees and 360 degrees, so tile naming will change in those > areas. That means that the scenery people have to prepare for it first, and that the next scenery release has to contain those tiles under both names? So committing it now wouldn't be a good idea, right? > This will cause temporary disruption, but I think it will > be minimal, since people rarely fly there. There are no (intentional) no-fly-zones in fgfs. Planning in "disruption areas" because people don't often fly there sounds like a reason why a patch would be ignored for a longer time. :-) m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
