On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:10:29 +0200 ThorstenB <bre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are really sorry for any inconvenience and misunderstandings this > further change may cause. But now, as we have everybody's attention on > the subject, we're looking forward to many people testing the proposed > changes. We also invite everyone to speak up on which kind of repository > they prefer. And we are still collecting issues and topics in the Wiki: Well, since you ask... I did start several emails at various points in the process but never sent any of them, mostly because I felt others had already made the points I wanted to state already, and didn't see any overwhelming vote for tearing up the status quo. For all the reasons previously stated, I'm completely in favour of ONE data repository for FG; if it really must be split up (and I have yet to see any convincing reason for that stated) I feel that there should be one aircraft repository. The alternatives with hackish scripts trying to download aircraft from here and there are just horrible, add extra unnecessary complexity and confusion - they don't make life easier for anyone at all. For a year or more now I've had no time to even maintain the models I spent massive amounts of time building; but I've been happy in the knowledge that at least they are in the fgdata repository and essential maintenance will (and has) been done to keep them from rotting entirely. I _don't_ want them split out; I wasn't unhappy with the previous state where my work on my own models was submitted to someone with commit rights. Indeed, a second glance at my changes before committing was welcomed from my point of view. The idea that the somehow the fgdata repository was spiralling into some gigantic out of control monster, bringing the Internet to its knees is nonsense. It's barely a DVDs' worth of data, most of us download that kind of thing without a second thought - this is 2011 after all. I do sympathise with those struggling with poor connections as I've been there too... however as Martin already pointed out there were "starter snapshots" of the repo available via presumably resumable HTTP, catering for those people. >From my point of view all I've seen here is a few people (however >well-intentioned) fruitlessly hacking apart something well proven to actually >work for practically everyone that _works_ on the FG data as opposed to those >who just try out the "latest stuff" - I'm not suggesting there's anything >wrong with that (especially as these days I'm more in that category myself) >but those users should have little priority. AJ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Ciosco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
