On 10/20/11, ThorstenB <bre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi FlightGear, > > there was little input on the fgdata split and few people speaking up > when things were started. We do see a lot of responses now - many being > in favor of the change, but also concerns about remaining issues. > Indeed, setting up the new repo isn't as simple as it seemed initially, > and there are issues which need to be resolved. We also need common > acceptance of the new structure, tools and processes.
Thanks for providing a sane solution, based on more than harsh words and hand-waving. I am not a core developer, however some of my work depends on keeping up-to-date with whatever is happening on git, so I feel compelled to speak up. As far as I'm concerned, I find the common fgdata repository as hassle free, however I would have no problem syncing a common aircraft repo too. But I think it would be wise to leave at least some well known aircraft, as well as the UFO inside fgdata proper, for obvious purposes. As far as workflow is concerned, I think the current process (clone, modify, pull request) is quite adequate but could use a little more documentation for new users which do not understand it completely, as seen recently. I speak for nobody but myself, of course. Cheers, Adrian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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@Cisco 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
