Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Saturday 01 December 2007 02:38:13 pm alexis bory wrote: Heiko Schulz wrote: But we havn't found a number yet- so how should we find the right name? Alexis Identifying the versions as stable testing and unstable might not be a bad idea. It tells people that active development is going on and there are new releases planned. eg... Flightgear Current Stable Version 0.9.10 Wright Testing 1.0 Lindenburg Unstable v1.5-osg Simstick I have not thought much about the names but I have thought about some easy to understand scheme to show that future versions are being worked on. It would be easier than writing a current news letter (hmmm.) - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Robert Black schrieb: On Saturday 01 December 2007 02:38:13 pm alexis bory wrote: Heiko Schulz wrote: But we havn't found a number yet- so how should we find the right name? Alexis Identifying the versions as stable testing and unstable might not be a bad idea. It tells people that active development is going on and there are new releases planned. eg... Flightgear Current Stable Version 0.9.10 Wright Testing 1.0 Lindenburg Unstable v1.5-osg Simstick As I wrote before I doubt that that will work for FGFS. Currently we've got a stable branch (even numbers at the second position) and a development branch (odd numbers at the sechon position). But all we do happens in the development brach and nothing gets backported to the stable branch. I'm for dropping this scheme and only release current versions. BTW, even the linux kernel developing process dropped that scheme - and *they* are realy depending on showing the customers (aka users) if they are working with stable or unstable code... A crashing FGFS is annoying, a crashing kernel can be desasterous... CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUtqmoWM1JLkHou0RCCM8AJ9zr/e8RSUV2hlwChn88/zHHiBvvQCfceWw 26zRmzlAFEZIW3qMcmrsc2w= =sMcf -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
n Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:24:06 +0100 (CET), Heiko wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: --- alexis bory [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Heiko Schulz wrote: And as first name we should take Wright- the first pilot an an aircraft OK, but let's call 0.9.11pre2 == Clement Ader ! Alexis Gustav Weisskopf! ..I raise you Hans Andreas Navrestad's 1825 400 meter glide across the Navrestad Lake in Lund, Norway, then we have Muslims, Chinese, and possibly pre-Columbian Americans and Egyptians flying gliders, some even rocket powered, and likely hot air balloons too, before the French woke up. ;o) To be serious - nice idea, but not very practicable. Mabye as add-on to the number like Ubuntu does. But we havn't found a number yet- so how should we find the right name? ..we have 0.9.11 which should add sea floor data in the scenery, so we can do proper sea level rise and carbon sink simulations too. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Hi, I'm not a developer, but I can see from the time I began to use FG the great work that have been done. My thought is that instead of the only use of numbers to count the FG versions, maybe this could be named using great historic aviators names like Guynemer, Yeager, Mermoz, St-Exupery, Red Baron (he already gave his name to a game though), etc. and so many I don't know but maybe you know, and more moderns, or not only pilots but aeronautical related (inventors, ingeeners, etc.). I think it would be nice to see a release named FG Lindbergh (or any ather name) for the version 0.9.1x, or 1.x.x. But what about the right to use this names? No single idea... Also, I think that it is not because FG is not entirely finished, and has reach all of its goals (which are increasing everyday) you couldn't release a version. Indeed when I start computing I used FS *4* which maybe used all the capacities of my old 8086 8MHz with 640Ko of RAM, so I understand why they had to change the version number as a top-level related to machines capabilities, but for now there is not a program which use 100% of capacities of our moderns computers (as far as I know...), so the version number is not linked with machines limitations especially with FG (maybe it's not true for MSFS ;-), I don't know, I don't use it for many years...). And to finish, I think that making more releases preserve the idea for end-users that FG is not a dead-project as sometimes it can be specified or implied on some games sites... (even if I know that FG is not a game, or not *only* a game and many organisations/universities can use it with other goal than having fun with (and that's one of the reasons making me think that FG is really a GREAT opensource project) Here are my two cents. Regards Seb PS: my preferred version in use is HEAD as it was already said in this thread ;) - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sébastien MARQUE wrote: Hi, I'm not a developer, but I can see from the time I began to use FG the great work that have been done. My thought is that instead of the only use of numbers to count the FG versions, maybe this could be named using great historic aviators names like Guynemer, Yeager, Mermoz, St-Exupery, Red Baron (he already gave his name to a game though), etc. and so many I don't know but maybe you know, and more moderns, or not only pilots but aeronautical related (inventors, ingeeners, etc.). +1 This is the best idea yet in this thread. Tim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHUZideDhWHdXrDRURAtpRAKCTY5EqH2B2cmYKveGBt68XpmLnNgCfR6Hy E52frpatrsXbnm8dPJFESeY= =EZil -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Tim Moore wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sébastien MARQUE wrote: Hi, I'm not a developer, but I can see from the time I began to use FG the great work that have been done. My thought is that instead of the only use of numbers to count the FG versions, maybe this could be named using great historic aviators names like Guynemer, Yeager, Mermoz, St-Exupery, Red Baron (he already gave his name to a game though), etc. and so many I don't know but maybe you know, and more moderns, or not only pilots but aeronautical related (inventors, ingeeners, etc.). +1 This is the best idea yet in this thread. Trubshaw :-) Jon - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Saturday 01 December 2007 17:23:41 Tim Moore wrote: This is the best idea yet in this thread. Though I like it in many respects, from a practical point of view it does make it very difficult to keep track of which version comes where in release order... with other software that uses this scheme (Debian-based distros, for example) it's really just a pain in the neck for anyone who isn't a dedicated full-time user or developer, IMHO. Not to mention that the names of some (many) intrepid aviators will have rather different connotations depending on which part of the world you happen to come from. 0.9.11 is unarguably simply a series of numbers (NOT a date), but these names will nearly all have genuine politics attached in addition to their aviation significance. Not something I'm personally particularly sensitive to, but if we're being overly touchy in the first place, there's nothing like jumping from the frying pan into the fire ;-) Cheers, AJ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
If I had loved ones invovled in 9/11, *I* would not want everyone walking around on eggshells at every possible combination of the numbers 9 and 11. I think it's disrespectful. So I vote for 0.9.11 if that makes sense technically. However, 0.10.0 sounds good too. I think 1.0 would backfire. On Nov 30, 2007 8:29 AM, Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking. 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid possible unintended connections that end users might interpret from such a version number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they don't care what version numbers we use or don't use. There is no fear involved in wanting to avoid using this number. Try respect. It might have something to do with showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 and those many heros that gave up their lives without hesitation to try to save the lives of others. I don't fault people who live outside of the USA or who have never been to New York or were never near ground zero for not getting it, there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little sphere of vision that I will never understand. But give me a break, what's the problem with yielding a small amount of leeway and respect to those that were affected by 9/11 or had connections there? We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are staring in the face of 0.9.13 and are we going to run into problems if we pick a version # 13? I wore number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other evening and missed all my shots. I wore a different number last night and scored two goals. These facts cannot be ignored! We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even version number proponents are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is going to mire in it's own set of politics. We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 years, and averaging 0.1 versions a year isn't so bad. This is my preference. FlightGear is developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 it seems like we are bumping along with very minor increments every few (or many) months. Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who cares what the actual numbers are really, as long as they increment in a sensible way. But what image do we want to project to the world? Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast paced development continually adding new and exciting features and aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a 0.9.x release in all that time? Again, not that version number really mean anything, other than to project our image to the world. I say it's go time. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -- Hans Fugal Fugal Computing - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
* Pigeon -- Saturday 01 December 2007: Just a crazy random thought, perhaps, like many other software we could add a codename for each release. It could be a just-for-fun thing, I think this has stopped being funny a few days after it was done the first time. I find such names silly and pointless, and not the least funny. FlightGear Tinky-Winky. Shudder ... m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Saturday 01 December 2007 18:02:58 Jon Stockill wrote: Trubshaw :-) Farley with the added advantage that the great man is still around, we'd need to ask his permission to use his name, and the only way I know to get hold of him is through the Flight Testing forum on www.pprune.org. If we do that then we bring the project to the attention of a load of other people who could be very interested. And we couldn't ask for better feedback on the harrier model :-) Willie - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Hi, Great idea! We really should do this! And as first name we should take Wright- the first pilot an an aircraft Regards HHS --- Tim Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Sébastien MARQUE wrote: Hi, I'm not a developer, but I can see from the time I began to use FG the great work that have been done. My thought is that instead of the only use of numbers to count the FG versions, maybe this could be named using great historic aviators names like Guynemer, Yeager, Mermoz, St-Exupery, Red Baron (he already gave his name to a game though), etc. and so many I don't know but maybe you know, and more moderns, or not only pilots but aeronautical related (inventors, ingeeners, etc.). +1 This is the best idea yet in this thread. Tim -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHUZideDhWHdXrDRURAtpRAKCTY5EqH2B2cmYKveGBt68XpmLnNgCfR6Hy E52frpatrsXbnm8dPJFESeY= =EZil -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail. www.yahoo.de/mail - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Saturday 01 December 2007 19:41:31 Heiko Schulz wrote: Hi, Great idea! We really should do this! And as first name we should take Wright- the first pilot an an aircraft Err - the Brazilians would have you believe Santos-Dumont had that honour and there is circumstantial evidence for some New Zealander in 1901. This also ignores the work done by the gliding fraternity and balloonists. But I think you are wright anyway ;-) Willie - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Dec 1, 2007 12:16 PM, Melchior FRANZ wrote: * Pigeon -- Saturday 01 December 2007: Just a crazy random thought, perhaps, like many other software we could add a codename for each release. It could be a just-for-fun thing, I think this has stopped being funny a few days after it was done the first time. I find such names silly and pointless, and not the least funny. FlightGear Tinky-Winky. Shudder ... I've got the purple box art all set to go ... can someone add a purse to the TuX model in FlightGear? Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Heiko Schulz wrote: Hi, Great idea! We really should do this! And as first name we should take Wright- the first pilot an an aircraft *cough* Cayley Jon - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
--- alexis bory [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Heiko Schulz wrote: And as first name we should take Wright- the first pilot an an aircraft OK, but let's call 0.9.11pre2 == Clement Ader ! Alexis Gustav Weisskopf! To be serious - nice idea, but not very practicable. Mabye as add-on to the number like Ubuntu does. But we havn't found a number yet- so how should we find the right name? Regards HHS Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail. www.yahoo.de/mail - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Heiko Schulz wrote: And as first name we should take Wright- the first pilot an an aircraft OK, but let's call 0.9.11pre2 == Clement Ader ! Alexis - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Heiko Schulz wrote: But we havn't found a number yet- so how should we find the right name? Are we really looking for a consensus ? or just having fun ? And I really don't care that much about numbers or names... I just hope we wont choose to add names, it would introduce far too many discussions, and also I hope we just stick on a well defined versioning policy. About such a policy, good solutions have already been posted to the list, and the former one, although simplistic, was not so bad. Someone (Curt ?) has to to be decisive. Alexis - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Never ever had this problems have you look at your hardware? --- AnMaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 FlightGear (both plib and osg) currently has a lot of odd bugs, most of them seems like race conditions to me, they are very hard to reproduce. Nothing puts off users more than unreproducible bugs in my experience. Some example: * Sometimes when starting fg, a few or more keybindings refuses to work. Just restarting fligtgear fixes it. * Sometimes when starting fg, you get just ocean under you, and not from missing scenery at that location, restarting fg at same location helps. And I did not run terrasync then. * Sometimes when starting fg thrust doesn't work. If you activate HUD you see the trottle move, so it isn't the keybidnings problem. Restarting fg helps... And there are more. /AnMaster Anders Gidenstam wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Curtis Olson wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I'd suggest 1.0.0 for the next plib release and 1.1.0 for the first OSG release. It'd even make sense to people used to reading an odd middle number as a development branch. I think we might want to have a OSG based (development) release around soon - if nothing else a bunch of the new aircraft need OSG be fully functional (e.g. some have pick animations only and no 2d hotspots). And when shadows and 3d clouds have reached OSG we could move on to 1.2.0 :) Cheers, Anders -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUEQ4WmK6ng/aMNkRCvRqAKCv8mFVTG1pmm/oWSqbtzMrNw+qGwCgluS/ szQxHCdGhRr3vB/fPyECxI0= =Nnut -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? Versuchen Sie´s mit dem neuen Yahoo! Mail. www.yahoo.de/mail - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Friday 30 November 2007 16:29, Curtis Olson wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. [SNIP] off-thread-note I wish one would get as many replies to technical inquiries on this list, as what I'm seeing right here /off-thread-note I say it's go time. :-) Having given the issue some thought, I also vote for 1.0. Here's my reasoning: The current version is pretty much the culmination of our plib based development tree. With regard to plib, and in particular SSG, we're approaching the limits of what's possible (in terms of graphics , etc). Therefore, it seems completely logical to release the end of this line of development as V1.0. Once this release is out, OSG will be the focus of our development efforts, and hopefully that will someday result in FlightGear 2.0. I just hope we don't need to switch to another scencegraph by then... Cheers, Durk - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Christian Mayer wrote: Curtis Olson schrieb: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. The odd/even numbering scheme doesn't really work for us (did anyone ever backport bugfixes to our stable series?) So *my* preference with the biggest continuity: 0.10.0 But I also like the idea of dropping the first zero - we kept it far too long... That'll be 10.0 then. Looking at our development process I also like the idea of an [k]ubunutu like scheme and just call it 07.12 Then I prefer Gentoo: .r First 2007 release would be 2007.0, second release during 2007: 2007.1, first release of 2008: 2008.0 and so on. What I don't like is avoiding 0.9.11 because of associations it might cause (at that day mass murder has happened - but terrorism is only working when we belive in it *and* react to it. Don't feed the trolls, no matter how hard it is for the victims I'm feeling very sorry for). What I like is a version number that represents the state of FGFS (or drop the thing that nobody needs and just use the current date...) CU, Christian - - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUJ0nWmK6ng/aMNkRCoPXAKDHEAUZ7bp9CSuCIbuIwj/DdjqHNgCgxlin XoJ+6bpOXAx/knZweVDVKOA= =qORM -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
We already have a 0.9.11-pre1 release, so I don't see a problem with going with 0.9.11. At the same time, I imagine to some people 0.9.12 *might* also make sense. To those unfortunate ones, I imagine just by looking at a plane or a flight sim might be hard enough. I seriously think a little number won't make a huge difference. But then like you said I'm just speaking as a foreigner here. And I respect your respect. So if we're not using 0.9.11, I'll vote 0.9.12 or 0.10.0 Just a crazy random thought, perhaps, like many other software we could add a codename for each release. It could be a just-for-fun thing, or you could think of it as a way to divert the attention away from the version number, just in case you don't like the number. Of course, it might end up confusing people as well :) Pigeon. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Curtis Olson schrieb: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. The odd/even numbering scheme doesn't really work for us (did anyone ever backport bugfixes to our stable series?) So *my* preference with the biggest continuity: 0.10.0 But I also like the idea of dropping the first zero - we kept it far too long... That'll be 10.0 then. Looking at our development process I also like the idea of an [k]ubunutu like scheme and just call it 07.12 What I don't like is avoiding 0.9.11 because of associations it might cause (at that day mass murder has happened - but terrorism is only working when we belive in it *and* react to it. Don't feed the trolls, no matter how hard it is for the victims I'm feeling very sorry for). What I like is a version number that represents the state of FGFS (or drop the thing that nobody needs and just use the current date...) CU, Christian -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUJdkoWM1JLkHou0RCLVjAJ4iGIPgOmrJef7Wzv4/9QQALA3BgwCeKiqx 587h+EIEho1QNeOwgLoOBZA= =RBWR -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I agree, 0.9.11 or 0.9.90 may be acceptable. Melchior FRANZ wrote: For me the following solutions are acceptable: 0.9.11 ... as the logical successor 0.9.90 ... making clear that we are now really close to 1.0 and that there won't be many releases until then, if any at all (This was done in other projects as well.) 1.0 ... not my favorite, but viable (I'd be tempted to call it v1.0 daylight edition ;-) What is absurd and completely unacceptable: 0.9.12 m. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUJHAWmK6ng/aMNkRCvGnAJ9X8xXt9xVqEtXTDtv+iEDDzKlZewCcDwXL NlHF+IscpqgabJX8DsqbXfU= =jQxo -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On 11/30/2007 02:36 PM, Durk Talsma wrote: off-thread-note I wish one would get as many replies to technical inquiries on this list, as what I'm seeing right here /off-thread-note Henry Kissinger said that academic debates are particularly vicious because there is so little at stake. Could we please look at this from the users' point of view? The version number doesn't matter. The user is going to click on whatever link says latest version. Does anybody really think that users are going to click or not click based on the version number? To show how silly this all is, here are some tongue-in-cheek suggestions: a) Following the example of Windows 2000, which came out in 2001, we should call it FG-2007. b) Following the example of US carmakers, who have strange notions of when the model year begins, we should call it FG-2009. (Note that the car makers' model year 2008 overlapped with the US federal fiscal year 2006). c) How 'bout we chip in and buy Curt a magic 8-ball, and base the decision on that? === In all seriousness, version numbers don't matter. It's nice if they're monotone, but even that doesn't really matter. Which do you think is bigger, a DC-8 or a DC-9? Truly I wish we could have this much discussion of things that actually matter to users. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Nov 30, 2007 1:36 PM, Durk Talsma wrote: Having given the issue some thought, I also vote for 1.0. Here's my reasoning: The current version is pretty much the culmination of our plib based development tree. With regard to plib, and in particular SSG, we're approaching the limits of what's possible (in terms of graphics , etc). Therefore, it seems completely logical to release the end of this line of development as V1.0. Once this release is out, OSG will be the focus of our development efforts, and hopefully that will someday result in FlightGear 2.0. I just hope we don't need to switch to another scencegraph by then... Here's another thought that wouldn't necessarily have to be an issue, but it's something we should be careful to avoid. Goals we can all agree on: 1. Get to a v1.0 release. 2. Do at least one final plib based release. 3. Implement a list of still missing features. Everyone has different priorities and goals here, but we all agree there are features that would be nice to have, but still aren't yet done. 4. Long term we want to move to OSG. What I would like to avoid is setting up the conditions and constraints such that we can't release a plib based v1.0 until it meets certain feature requirements. But at the same time make it known that as soon as we get a v1.0 plib based release out the door we will immediately cut over to OSG and base all further development efforts on that. The problem is that who would want to invest a ton of time battling the limits of plib/ssg to get these features done for v1.0, only to have the team turn around and immediately abandon all that effort in favor of OSG and a completely different way of doing them. I'm not saying we are necessarily setting ourselves up for this particular conundrum, but we want to avoid inadvertant demotivations that will keep us short of our consensus goals. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
I mean your input hardware like joystick, keyboard --- AnMaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Heiko Schulz wrote: Never ever had this problems have you look at your hardware? I had the problems I listed on several computers, both single- and multi-cpu. /AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUE5iWmK6ng/aMNkRCpCGAKCLNjKeq2z3BN3STdOvXjzGoo2zpwCfRoT0 kkQX4V/Xyfn0KUzMay8B9VM= =meCW -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel __ Ihre erste Baustelle? Wissenswertes für Bastler und Hobby Handwerker. www.yahoo.de/clever - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Arnt Karlsen writes: Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) ..delurking... ;o) :-) .. ;o) GPL sea floor map data, anyone? http://topex.ucsd.edu/WWW_html/mar_topo.html http://www.shadedrelief.com/cleantopo2/index.html Recloaking Norman - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:29:05 -0600, Curtis wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) ..delurking... ;o) inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast paced development continually adding new and exciting features ..one such feature could be SG or FG modelling the sea level rise from carbon emissions, we would need adding sea floor data to the scenery, and modelling water as a fluid rather than an ellipsoid surface. ..to model all known sea levels possible, we need tide water rising and dropping 150 meters above and below todays current sea level and todays tide water. Ties nicely in with weather modelling too. ..going beyond this, we could model carbon sinks like the oceans, the woods, marshland and farming. Some believe the Amazonas jungle is pre-columbian slash-n-char wood based farmland, you find pockets of nice fat farmland soil, way rich in carbon and known as terra preta and with pieces of old charcoal in it. Some suggest this kinda farming was done for between 6000 to 2 years. ..some suggest Maya milpa agriculture is a response to the European invasion, dispensing with soil production from charcoal in favor of slash-n-burn and mobility by shortening the cycle from 20 years to 2, 5 or 7 years. ..yanking down the 350 gigatons CO2 since AD 1600, out of thin air, and put it into soil to produce new farmland soil, will do 3 things I find important, 1 provide an actual viable control response to the global heat-up instead of todays politically correct emission rate reduction joke, and 2 triple the volume of farmland soil worldwide which, 3 will allow us feeding another 15 billion people on this planet Earth. ..so, we _can_ show a viable alternative way forward. We have all the skills we need to do it. And, us cranky old hobbyists doing a cranky flight sim isn't as likely to land nice fat funds as a bunch of cranky developers doing a flight 'n climate sim with real weather because we hate todays politically correct stupidity like cut emissions to 1990 levels. Etc. ..the only other viable option is, really, carry _on_ with the demand cut scheme started on 9/11-2001, and take it beyond _all_ conspiracy theories. ..for that, there is no need to even do tide water in FG, nor to ditch the 0.9.11 or 0.10.0 or 1.0 or whatever. (Nor would there be a need or point in tying keys to check list style menus to dodge keyboard layout etc issues. Or even try evade Microsoft litigation trap tactics.) and aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a 0.9.xrelease in all that time? Again, not that version number really mean anything, other than to project our image to the world. I say it's go time. :-) Curt. .. ;o) GPL sea floor map data, anyone? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Never ever had this problems have you look at your hardware? --- AnMaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 FlightGear (both plib and osg) currently has a lot of odd bugs, most of them seems like race conditions to me, they are very hard to reproduce. Nothing puts off users more than unreproducible bugs in my experience. Some example: * Sometimes when starting fg, a few or more keybindings refuses to work. Just restarting fligtgear fixes it. * Sometimes when starting fg, you get just ocean under you, and not from missing scenery at that location, restarting fg at same location helps. And I did not run terrasync then. * Sometimes when starting fg thrust doesn't work. If you activate HUD you see the trottle move, so it isn't the keybidnings problem. Restarting fg helps... And there are more. /AnMaster Anders Gidenstam wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Curtis Olson wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I'd suggest 1.0.0 for the next plib release and 1.1.0 for the first OSG release. It'd even make sense to people used to reading an odd middle number as a development branch. I think we might want to have a OSG based (development) release around soon - if nothing else a bunch of the new aircraft need OSG be fully functional (e.g. some have pick animations only and no 2d hotspots). And when shadows and 3d clouds have reached OSG we could move on to 1.2.0 :) Cheers, Anders -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUEQ4WmK6ng/aMNkRCvRqAKCv8mFVTG1pmm/oWSqbtzMrNw+qGwCgluS/ szQxHCdGhRr3vB/fPyECxI0= =Nnut -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel Heute schon einen Blick in die Zukunft von E-Mails wagen? www.yahoo.de/mail - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Am Freitag 30 November 2007 schrieb Curtis Olson: ...[lots of version number discussion]... I say it's go time. :-) If it comes down to marketing and a reasonable version number scheme (i.e. one that correlates with the major feature development), why not skip 1.0 altogether. v1.0 has that magical, shining appearance of bugfree, feature complete etc. something the current version definitely is not (given the other testing thread). So my proposal is to go back over the changelog, count the biggest improvements and call it v4.0 or v5.3. Together with some explaining notes in the distro and on the website this should not raise the excitement (which IMO backfires at us ATM) that a silent 1.0 is going to produce. OTOH the version number is the most uninteresting thing for me in FG. The versions important to me are usually called HEAD... :P Thomas - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Nov 30, 2007 9:29 AM, Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I say it's go time. :-) Curt. -- When the worst of the 'stuttering' problem was resolved, it began to feel like a v1.0.0 to me. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
12.7.1941 is a good number to avoid as well. Curtis Olson wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking. 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid possible unintended connections that end users might interpret from such a version number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they don't care what version numbers we use or don't use. There is no fear involved in wanting to avoid using this number. Try respect. It might have something to do with showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 and those many heros that gave up their lives without hesitation to try to save the lives of others. I don't fault people who live outside of the USA or who have never been to New York or were never near ground zero for not getting it, there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little sphere of vision that I will never understand. But give me a break, what's the problem with yielding a small amount of leeway and respect to those that were affected by 9/11 or had connections there? We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are staring in the face of 0.9.13 and are we going to run into problems if we pick a version # 13? I wore number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other evening and missed all my shots. I wore a different number last night and scored two goals. These facts cannot be ignored! We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even version number proponents are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is going to mire in it's own set of politics. We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 years, and averaging 0.1 versions a year isn't so bad. This is my preference. FlightGear is developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 it seems like we are bumping along with very minor increments every few (or many) months. Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who cares what the actual numbers are really, as long as they increment in a sensible way. But what image do we want to project to the world? Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast paced development continually adding new and exciting features and aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a 0.9.x release in all that time? Again, not that version number really mean anything, other than to project our image to the world. I say it's go time. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ http://baron.flightgear.org/%7Ecurt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
V1.0 Jon - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
[Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking. 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid possible unintended connections that end users might interpret from such a version number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they don't care what version numbers we use or don't use. There is no fear involved in wanting to avoid using this number. Try respect. It might have something to do with showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 and those many heros that gave up their lives without hesitation to try to save the lives of others. I don't fault people who live outside of the USA or who have never been to New York or were never near ground zero for not getting it, there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little sphere of vision that I will never understand. But give me a break, what's the problem with yielding a small amount of leeway and respect to those that were affected by 9/11 or had connections there? We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are staring in the face of 0.9.13and are we going to run into problems if we pick a version # 13? I wore number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other evening and missed all my shots. I wore a different number last night and scored two goals. These facts cannot be ignored! We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even version number proponents are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is going to mire in it's own set of politics. We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 years, and averaging 0.1versions a year isn't so bad. This is my preference. FlightGear is developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 it seems like we are bumping along with very minor increments every few (or many) months. Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who cares what the actual numbers are really, as long as they increment in a sensible way. But what image do we want to project to the world? Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast paced development continually adding new and exciting features and aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a 0.9.xrelease in all that time? Again, not that version number really mean anything, other than to project our image to the world. I say it's go time. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Heiko Schulz wrote: I mean your input hardware like joystick, keyboard They work correct yes and I did check them + they worked in other programs. (Oh and I used different input devices one the different computers, one was a laptop)... /AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUFiMWmK6ng/aMNkRCnfrAJ0Qq6gakYvFruvgJIgo2KBVaTKSaACfZe2E x/9wKzxZHV//C9T9IqZBTTQ= =6fGT -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Stuart Buchanan a e'crit : I'd also much rather have the final plib release be v1.0 rather than the first OSG release. good point ! - having a 0.9.11 is not such a big deal. - the lake of lights is a concern but waiting for this for a 1.0 doesn't have such sense. I vote v-1.0 because it clearly shows that our development is alive. Alexis - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. Technically: 0.9.11 because it's a big step ahead, not a giant leap Personal feeling: 0.10.0 with respect to 9/11 Marketing: Make it 0.10.0 and strip the leading zero so we get 10.0. That is an impressing version number and we can also call it FGFS-X - if we really want that ;-) I seriously think, that FlightGear has already passed the 1.0 state. Yes, there are missing features, but it does all it promises to do and it is -nearly- stable. So my vote is: 10.0 Torsten - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Curtis Olson wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I'd suggest 1.0.0 for the next plib release and 1.1.0 for the first OSG release. It'd even make sense to people used to reading an odd middle number as a development branch. I think we might want to have a OSG based (development) release around soon - if nothing else a bunch of the new aircraft need OSG be fully functional (e.g. some have pick animations only and no 2d hotspots). And when shadows and 3d clouds have reached OSG we could move on to 1.2.0 :) Cheers, Anders -- --- Anders Gidenstam mail: anders(at)gidenstam.org WWW: http://www.gidenstam.org/FlightGear/JSBSim-LTA/ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 SydSandy wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:05:10 -0500 John Denker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: c) How 'bout we chip in and buy Curt a magic 8-ball, and base the decision on that? I personally think we should skip the 0.9.11 , but I think the above is the best suggestion yet :). Or a pair of dice :) Cheers This raises the important question of how many sides the dice should have. The standard 6? Or 20? Or something else? Regards, AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUJGYWmK6ng/aMNkRCoWtAJ0aUzbK4MwGcS9K1l3O2XvlCbsKPwCgyme1 g8tIOztz43FTjIMPchIFrDU= =GPF1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
For me the following solutions are acceptable: 0.9.11 ... as the logical successor 0.9.90 ... making clear that we are now really close to 1.0 and that there won't be many releases until then, if any at all (This was done in other projects as well.) 1.0 ... not my favorite, but viable (I'd be tempted to call it v1.0 daylight edition ;-) What is absurd and completely unacceptable: 0.9.12 m. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Heiko Schulz wrote: Never ever had this problems have you look at your hardware? I had the problems I listed on several computers, both single- and multi-cpu. /AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUE5iWmK6ng/aMNkRCpCGAKCLNjKeq2z3BN3STdOvXjzGoo2zpwCfRoT0 kkQX4V/Xyfn0KUzMay8B9VM= =meCW -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
I think that the juxtaposition of 9.11 and Flight Simulator would be unfortunate, to say the least. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about that personally, but I recognise that there are those, particularly the other side of the pond, who do or might. Why give gratuitous and unnecessary offence? On the other hand Version 1.0. But we have OSG waiting in the wings, don;t we?. This is just a temporary release isn't it? perhaps 9.12 or something would be more appropriate. Vivian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf OfOlson Sent: 30 November 2007 15:29 To: FlightGear developers discussions Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking. 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid possible unintended connections that end users might interpret from such a version number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they don't care what version numbers we use or don't use. There is no fear involved in wanting to avoid using this number. Try respect. It might have something to do with showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 and those many heros that gave up their lives without hesitation to try to save the lives of others. I don't fault people who live outside of the USA or who have never been to New York or were never near ground zero for not getting it, there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little sphere of vision that I will never understand. But give me a break, what's the problem with yielding a small amount of leeway and respect to those that were affected by 9/11 or had connections there? We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are staring in the face of 0.9.13 and are we going to run into problems if we pick a version # 13? I wore number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other evening and missed all my shots. I wore a different number last night and scored two goals. These facts cannot be ignored! We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even version number proponents are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is going to mire in it's own set of politics. We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 years, and averaging 0.1 versions a year isn't so bad. This is my preference. FlightGear is developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 it seems like we are bumping along with very minor increments every few (or many) months. Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who cares what the actual numbers are really, as long as they increment in a sensible way. But what image do we want to project to the world? Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast paced development continually adding new and exciting features and aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a 0.9.x release in all that time? Again, not that version number really mean anything, other than to project our image to the world. I say it's go time. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Curtis Olson wrote: I say it's go time. :-) Curt. I say go with 0.9.11. And for those worried about that number, work extra hard updating/improving the code so we can then quickly move to 0.9.12 :-) Or better still, start a new versioning system with OSG. JW - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 0.9.11 or 0.10, there are too may problems and missing features to call it 1.0 IMO. Regards AnMaster Curtis Olson wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking. 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid possible unintended connections that end users might interpret from such a version number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they don't care what version numbers we use or don't use. There is no fear involved in wanting to avoid using this number. Try respect. It might have something to do with showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 and those many heros that gave up their lives without hesitation to try to save the lives of others. I don't fault people who live outside of the USA or who have never been to New York or were never near ground zero for not getting it, there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little sphere of vision that I will never understand. But give me a break, what's the problem with yielding a small amount of leeway and respect to those that were affected by 9/11 or had connections there? We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are staring in the face of 0.9.13and are we going to run into problems if we pick a version # 13? I wore number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other evening and missed all my shots. I wore a different number last night and scored two goals. These facts cannot be ignored! We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even version number proponents are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is going to mire in it's own set of politics. We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 years, and averaging 0.1versions a year isn't so bad. This is my preference. FlightGear is developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 it seems like we are bumping along with very minor increments every few (or many) months. Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who cares what the actual numbers are really, as long as they increment in a sensible way. But what image do we want to project to the world? Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast paced development continually adding new and exciting features and aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a 0.9.xrelease in all that time? Again, not that version number really mean anything, other than to project our image to the world. I say it's go time. :-) Curt. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUDGwWmK6ng/aMNkRCtJ/AJ94Pp320czQVGdG9CmGnm/l4bnAdgCfYUGe FcnIPx5FtSJC8xl3uueJMqg= =3S9g -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Upps... I meant 0.9.90 --- Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: On Nov 30, 2007 9:32 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote: This release: 0.9.9 Unfortunately we have already done a 0.9.9 release and a 0.9.10 release. Next Release which will be (hopefully) OSG: 1.0 Yes, or maybe OSG: 2.0 Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel Machen Sie Yahoo! zu Ihrer Startseite. Los geht's: http://de.yahoo.com/set - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Actually, it might be closer to v5.0 by now. - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
Hi, My vote: This release: 0.9.9 Next Release which will be (hopefully) OSG: 1.0 Regards HHS --- Curtis Olson [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I don't intend to slant the discussion, but here is what I'm thinking. 0.9.11 is the next in the logical sequence. But I'd like to avoid possible unintended connections that end users might interpret from such a version number. This has nothing to do with terrorism, they don't care what version numbers we use or don't use. There is no fear involved in wanting to avoid using this number. Try respect. It might have something to do with showing respect to those that were affected by 9/11 and those many heros that gave up their lives without hesitation to try to save the lives of others. I don't fault people who live outside of the USA or who have never been to New York or were never near ground zero for not getting it, there's an awful lot of stuff outside my little sphere of vision that I will never understand. But give me a break, what's the problem with yielding a small amount of leeway and respect to those that were affected by 9/11 or had connections there? We could skip over to 0.9.12, but then we are staring in the face of 0.9.13and are we going to run into problems if we pick a version # 13? I wore number 13 in my soccer (err futbol) game the other evening and missed all my shots. I wore a different number last night and scored two goals. These facts cannot be ignored! We could go with 0.10.0, but then all the odd/even version number proponents are going to come out of the woodwork, and that is going to mire in it's own set of politics. We could go with v1.0 ... we've been at this 10 years, and averaging 0.1versions a year isn't so bad. This is my preference. FlightGear is developing at a rapid rate, but if we stick with 0.9.12, 0.9.13, 0.9.14 it seems like we are bumping along with very minor increments every few (or many) months. Of course this all boils down to marketing. Who cares what the actual numbers are really, as long as they increment in a sensible way. But what image do we want to project to the world? Are we a bunch of old cranky developers (it looks that way sometimes!) :-) inching along at a snails pace, or are we a dynamic exciting group with fast paced development continually adding new and exciting features and aircraft? We've been at this 10 years, have we really only managed a 0.9.xrelease in all that time? Again, not that version number really mean anything, other than to project our image to the world. I say it's go time. :-) Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel __ Ihr erstes Fernweh? Wo gibt es den schönsten Strand? www.yahoo.de/clever - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Nov 30, 2007 9:32 AM, Heiko Schulz wrote: This release: 0.9.9 Unfortunately we have already done a 0.9.9 release and a 0.9.10 release. Next Release which will be (hopefully) OSG: 1.0 Yes, or maybe OSG: 2.0 Curt. -- Curtis Olson: http://baron.flightgear.org/~curt/ Unique text: 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
--- Curtis Olson wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. Let's go with v1.0. It is a great way to recognise the massive amount of work that has been done since 0.9.10. We've been talking about the mythical v1.0 for ages, and I think that it is high time we just did it. I think the quality and feature set is more than good enough. It would also be a fantastic opportunity to do a bit or marketting, blow our own trumpets, pat ourselves on the back and bask in the glory. I've noticed that the past year has been a bit tenser than previous years, with tempers frayed on-list, so it would also have a cathartic effect of reminding us why we do this. I'd also much rather have the final plib release be v1.0 rather than the first OSG release. I don't have a problem with v0.9.11, and don't see it as a possible issue. I'm also not too bothered about a subsequent 0.9.13 release, given my birthday (13th June) and address (13 Mertoun Place). However, going to v1.0 neatly side-steps both these issues and encourages global harmony. -Stuart __ Sent from Yahoo! - the World's favourite mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Vivian Meazza wrote: I think that the juxtaposition of 9.11 and Flight Simulator would be unfortunate, to say the least. I'm not sure how strongly I feel about that personally, but I recognise that there are those, particularly the other side of the pond, who do or might. Why give gratuitous and unnecessary offence? On the other hand Version 1.0. But we have OSG waiting in the wings, don;t we?. This is just a temporary release isn't it? perhaps 9.12 or something would be more appropriate. That means an ilogical jump. In that case 0.10.0 would be better. /AnMaster -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUDxWWmK6ng/aMNkRCpyQAJ44QiM3gbY2hUrvbu6WJy4xKBNRbwCfWD58 so0cNjX/Zso9UHQw2/GwM8s= =d8c7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 FlightGear (both plib and osg) currently has a lot of odd bugs, most of them seems like race conditions to me, they are very hard to reproduce. Nothing puts off users more than unreproducible bugs in my experience. Some example: * Sometimes when starting fg, a few or more keybindings refuses to work. Just restarting fligtgear fixes it. * Sometimes when starting fg, you get just ocean under you, and not from missing scenery at that location, restarting fg at same location helps. And I did not run terrasync then. * Sometimes when starting fg thrust doesn't work. If you activate HUD you see the trottle move, so it isn't the keybidnings problem. Restarting fg helps... And there are more. /AnMaster Anders Gidenstam wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Curtis Olson wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. I'd suggest 1.0.0 for the next plib release and 1.1.0 for the first OSG release. It'd even make sense to people used to reading an odd middle number as a development branch. I think we might want to have a OSG based (development) release around soon - if nothing else a bunch of the new aircraft need OSG be fully functional (e.g. some have pick animations only and no 2d hotspots). And when shadows and 3d clouds have reached OSG we could move on to 1.2.0 :) Cheers, Anders -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHUEQ4WmK6ng/aMNkRCvRqAKCv8mFVTG1pmm/oWSqbtzMrNw+qGwCgluS/ szQxHCdGhRr3vB/fPyECxI0= =Nnut -END PGP SIGNATURE- - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On ven 30 novembre 2007, Thomas Förster wrote: Am Freitag 30 November 2007 schrieb Curtis Olson: ...[lots of version number discussion]... I say it's go time. :-) If it comes down to marketing and a reasonable version number scheme (i.e. one that correlates with the major feature development), why not skip 1.0 altogether. v1.0 has that magical, shining appearance of bugfree, feature complete etc. something the current version definitely is not (given the other testing thread). So my proposal is to go back over the changelog, count the biggest improvements and call it v4.0 or v5.3. Together with some explaining notes in the distro and on the website this should not raise the excitement (which IMO backfires at us ATM) that a silent 1.0 is going to produce. OTOH the version number is the most uninteresting thing for me in FG. The versions important to me are usually called HEAD... :P Thomas I fully agree, with Thomas, don't be shy, the quality of that FG-Plib version, (being the last or not) can be said to be a successful result of so many years of work. 1.0 should say it. Cheers -- Gérard http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GRTux/ - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:05:10 -0500 John Denker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: c) How 'bout we chip in and buy Curt a magic 8-ball, and base the decision on that? I personally think we should skip the 0.9.11 , but I think the above is the best suggestion yet :). Or a pair of dice :) Cheers -- SydSandy [EMAIL PROTECTED] - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Informal version number poll
On Friday 30 November 2007, Curtis Olson wrote: How about a quick, friendly, positive, informal thread here to do a poll on what what folks are thinking for the next version number. 1.0 But I allso like the way Ubuntu does it: yy.mm It's simple, informative, and there is no mind games involved. -- Roy Vegard Ovesen - SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
