On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 09:46:58PM +0200, Gijs de Rooy wrote: > Hi all! > > > Cedric wrote: > > ManDay, on behalf of the Split-Team ^^ > > > ThorstenB wrote: > > I don't think this is what we agreed upon. > > I'd like to mention that Cedric did not wrote his email "on my behalf" nor > on Jorg's.
Hello, I apologize for wrongly inserting the suggestion to dissolve the repos "on your behalf". I think the other parts of the E-Mail, the description etc, were very well composed on your behalf, though. As for the topic brought up here, I sense a bit of sentimentalism clouding the technical judgment of some. Fact is, that quite a few aircrafts of the old FGDATA are nowadays developed elsewhere. I recall at least having witnessed this twice, although I've only tried a few airplanes. If I recall correctly, skyop's magnificant Bombardier is one of those planes which are developed launchpad and is only represented in FGDATA-Airplanes for "historical reasons". Regardless, your arguments why a central repository would be an advantage, minus the sentimental "it has always been like that" parts, esp. the one about authors joining and leaving, are more or less orthogonal to the philosophy of the development structure which you employ: Git and Gitorious. A central facility, which collects all planes, yes, that makes sense. Actually, I see not how such thing could possibly be forgone. But forcing all aircraft development under the patronage of the core developers is without any practical footing. You are not helping anyone, nor are you supporting GPL. If people want to publish under the GPL, they will do so. If not, they wont. Regardless of whether you coerce them to publish their planes in your "master-repository", but only as GPL. Neither do you provide any more "guarantee" by herding developers into your central repository. You are only patronizing them. You cannot guarantee for someone else's property. And if it's not their property for it's GPL, you can always keep yourself a backup-copy or a clone of their repository, if you are worried about guarantees. Not only are all these alleged advantages pretty much contrived, there are also disadvantages in urging people to play in your opera rather than their own. Restrictions are always harmful to voluntary work. If I, for example, am a LP user and you are trying to lure me "come, come to us, here is where the good things happen" to your repository, I will rather turn away - as opposed to an OPEN development structure where people are encourage to develop whereever, however they want and simply announce their contribution centrally. History has shown what that concept of a centralized "master-repo" has lead to: A thick jungle of half-finished, unmaintained and completely abandoned planes, happily mixed with high-quality planes, relicts of planes which have long been migrated to development elsewhere and practically everone has lost orientation in your "master-repo". This is not how Git works. This is not how modular contribution on open software works. This is not how Gitorious works. It's most likely counter productive, as has been the unnavigable jungle of planes in the first place. In a positive creative development structure you leave the contributors their freedom. "Contribute your planes!" rather than "Come to Gitorious, ask for our permission to get your repository, work under our supervision! Work, work, my busy bees, and make us planes for our big master-repository!" ...to be equally provocative. kind regards, ManDay ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. Business sense. IT sense. Common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-oct _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
