In some things I have to agree to Tim. Multiple hangars aren't bad and just show how our Project grows. And we won't prevent this in future when community is still growing, and I'm sure it will.
But there will be some difficulties coming with: > As long as the submitted > material adheres to the GPL > > licence, there is no principle limit as to what can go into > CVS, with a few > > exceptions. These being 1) world scenery. The world scenery > is currently > > maintained as a separate project, and contributions for > this can be submitted > > there. 2) Liveries. There's been some discussion about > adding multiple > > liveries of various aircraft to CVS, and it's currently > been left up to the > > individual aircraft developers decide what to include. > Because the possible > > number of varieties in livery are seemingly endless, there > has been some > > concern that excessive amounts of liveries may bring CVS to > it's knees. For > > this reason, a separate (more or less officially > sanctified) livery repository > > has been set up. As long it is under GNU GPL it is of course recommended to have it in the official repo. But not only excessive amounts of liveries can bring CVS in its knees, also the increasing numbers of Aircrafts and its growing qualitity. Currently it isn't fun to download the whole Aircraft repo in CVS, and won't be beeing better in future. Multiple hangars can take away this amount. Problem: it will be difficult for users to find the stuff they want. > > > As follows from this, I have to add that I'm not too > excited about all the > > invidual hangars, and scenery repository sites (such as > "unitedfreeworld") > > that I'm seeing spring to life right now. I do realize > that these sites serve > > their purpose as a temporary storage for material that > needs further > > refinement, and also accept the fact that some materials > simply cannot be > > added to cvs due to the fact that original materials were > incompatible with > > the GPL, but apart from these cases, I do believe that it > should be encouraged > > that eligible materials go into CVS. > Do you want 100s of people to be involved > with FlightGear development, or tens of thousands? > > I think the individual hangars are great, no matter what > their license. I hope FlightGear better supports multiple > data directories in the future. A single data directory, > with a centeral repository, just doesn't scale. UnitedfreeWorld.com itself is something I won't dicuss here, as I have certain problems with it myself. But the principale behind we discuss here keeps the same. FlightGear claims to be a free simulator- free in the way it doesn't costs anything, but also free in the manner of "freedom". And yes, just as it isn't GNU GPL, but in another OpenSource Licence, doesn't mean that it is bad. I hope that multiple data directories in a near futur. But before I hope to see that it will be easier to contribute to FGFS. Developers without CVS access are depandant of the ones with. And that keeps a lot users away, and slows down developement. Another thing why we have multiple hangars. Heiko __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
