On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:34 AM, LeeE <l...@spatial.plus.com> wrote: > On Sunday 29 March 2009, Ron Jensen wrote: >> On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 01:55 -0700, syd adams wrote: >> > I have to agree here ... seems pointless to keep them in cvs if >> > gerard will have maintained versions available ... >> > Also saves everyone's time down the road trying to explain why >> > it's broken and where to get the current version.:) >> > Cheers >> >> And I disagree. We should leave them in CVS. There is no point >> in causing their removal from everyone who uses CVS's hard-drive >> at this time. >> >> Ron >> > > If the aircraft is going to be maintained ex-cvs but not maintained > within cvs, then retaining it within cvs just adds another > unmaintained aircraft to the list. > > While someone, at some point in the future, may adopt it, until that > actually happens all you're achieving by keeping it in cvs is > making an obsolete version available, which is worse than useless. > A link to the maintained version makes much more sense. >
Hi Guys, Agreed, except for the situation where the author of an aircraft decides to change the license. When this happens, a fork has been created, even if there is still only one version. If an aircraft is not available in CVS or somewhere else that is authoritative, where does that leave a community. The "former license" community has rights to extend the pre-fork version of the software/data. Just a thought. Regards George ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
