leee wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 Mar 2010, Martin Spott wrote:
>> In a continuous process of improving FlightGear there's no point
>> in keeping an 'undesired' (or, in some cases even a buggy)
>> feature as being the default just because some unknown 3rd party
>> software _might_ depend on it.
>> If people don't feel like moving on with the times then they're
>> free to use old versions of software. If they'd like to stay
>> current, then they're going to adjust their 3rd party stuff
>> accordingly.
> Aha, so all the aircraft that have been developed for FG, and
> without which FG would be pretty pointless (unless you only ever
> want to fly the C-172) are just "unknown 3rd party stuff" now then?
Aircraft in CVS are easily fixed during the development cycle, thus are
likely to be working as expected until the next release (if they fail
at all, which is expected to be very unlikely). The maintainers of 3rd
party collections are having plenty of time until the next release to
get their stuff adjusted accordingly.
There's no point in trying to prevent people from improving FlightGear
as long you don't identify a _real_ issue,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
