I guess what Curt was saying is, him being the "release manager" of
the project, has to find appropriate and free time do all the things for
a release, which is fair enough and understandable.
Perhaps we can have more people to help doing a release? Personally
I've only witnessed one re
AJ MacLeod wrote:
I really hope this is made to work at least as well as the earlier patches
because I think it's a _great_ feature and one that makes life with FG that
little bit more pleasant...
Yeah well, I was trying to outsmarten myself, and got hit in the back.
It took me way longer th
On Saturday 17 December 2005 11:40, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Lighten up, I just started looking at this patch since Fred promised to
> fill in the missing gaps.
I was delighted to see a form of the options saving patches going into CVS,
since I've been using the earlier versions with no troubles at a
Paul Surgeon wrote:
No what would make us more happy is to know why there is such an urgency to
have two FG releases in the space of a couple of months when up till now
we've been releasing about once per year.
What has prompted this change?
This decision didn't involve the developers at all.
Paul Surgeon wrote:
On Saturday 17 December 2005 13:40, Erik Hofman wrote:
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Sorry to be annoying yet again, but that's what I'm best at:
* Erik Hofman -- Saturday 17 December 2005 10:48:
I must say I like the idea, but given it's current state (no windows
On Saturday 17 December 2005 16:10, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
> Maybe we should drop the arbitrary version numbering scheme (and I do
> see the version numbers as 99.9.9% arbitrary) and go with code names for
> our releases. Would that make people happier?
>
> Curt.
No what would make us more happy
On Saturday 17 December 2005 13:40, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > Sorry to be annoying yet again, but that's what I'm best at:
> >
> > * Erik Hofman -- Saturday 17 December 2005 10:48:
> >> I must say I like the idea, but given it's current state (no windows
> >> support) I would l
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Either the 1.0 number means anything, then fgfs better be complete.
Or it doesn't mean anything, then let's release it when it's done
and call the next releases 0.9.10++.
Or is there a compelling reason to rush out 1.0 *now*? One that we
aren't told for whatever reason? Do
Erik Hofman wrote:
I noticed this already. I think I like it to be called create()
instead, but that's a different matter.
Maybe createDir? Because it's a member of SGPath which may as well be
the path to a file. So it'd be confusing if path_to_a_file.create()
created a directory.
I haven't
Stefan Seifert wrote:
Erik Hofman wrote:
Lighten up, I just started looking at this patch since Fred promised
to fill in the missing gaps.
I just noticed, that this patch could break compilation, since in
sg_patch.cxx the new method is called makeDir and in the header it's
still makedir. I k
Erik Hofman wrote:
Lighten up, I just started looking at this patch since Fred promised
to fill in the missing gaps.
I just noticed, that this patch could break compilation, since in
sg_patch.cxx the new method is called makeDir and in the header it's
still makedir. I know, I should always te
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Sorry to be annoying yet again, but that's what I'm best at:
* Erik Hofman -- Saturday 17 December 2005 10:48:
I must say I like the idea, but given it's current state (no windows
support) I would like to postpone it until after FlightGear 1.0 is released.
And I would l
Sorry to be annoying yet again, but that's what I'm best at:
* Erik Hofman -- Saturday 17 December 2005 10:48:
> I must say I like the idea, but given it's current state (no windows
> support) I would like to postpone it until after FlightGear 1.0 is released.
And I would like to postpone the 1
13 matches
Mail list logo