On Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:02:04 AM Emilian Huminiuc wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 July 2011 04:18:33 Hal V. Engel wrote:
> > On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:05:07 AM BARANGER Emmanuel wrote:
> > > have you tested the script of Pierre NEGRE ? :
> > > http://rene16.dyndns.org/run/ (import/export .AC for Blen
http://rene16.dyndns.org/blender/io_scene_ac.tar.gz
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 21:18, Hal V. Engel wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:05:07 AM BARANGER Emmanuel wrote:
>
>> have you tested the script of Pierre NEGRE ? :
>
>> http://rene16.dyndns.org/run/ (import/export .AC for Blender 2.58)
>
> Wh
Melchior,
there have been very, very few cases where I applied bug fixes to an
aircraft directly, when I thought the fix was absolutely trivial - and
was absolutely sure, that the author could impossibly disapprove the fix
in general, neither disapprove the particular way of fixing the issue.
On Tuesday 12 July 2011 04:18:33 Hal V. Engel wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:05:07 AM BARANGER Emmanuel wrote:
> > have you tested the script of Pierre NEGRE ? :
> > http://rene16.dyndns.org/run/ (import/export .AC for Blender 2.58)
>
> Where can this be found? The web page is in French (I
On Monday, July 11, 2011 10:05:07 AM BARANGER Emmanuel wrote:
> have you tested the script of Pierre NEGRE ? :
> http://rene16.dyndns.org/run/ (import/export .AC for Blender 2.58)
Where can this be found? The web page is in French (I think) and I don't find
any links to the AC3D plug-in. I thou
Hey Guys,
The era of respect is only over if people choose to abandon it. I think we
can all hope for something better than that.
Let me summarize how things generally have worked and (I believe) should
work.
An author of an aircraft (or a section of code) generally enjoys a certain
level of ow
Now I have to clarify: I assume Thorsten just did what he does since
a while: fix bugs. Which is great. He probably either thought the
bo105 is no longer maintained, or didn't know the (now obsolete?)
maintenance principle. But there were certainly no bad intentions.
What I'm more concerned about
On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 19:55:09 +0200
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> * BARANGER Emmanuel -- Monday 11 July 2011:
> > You placed them under the GPL and it's the very principle of this
> > license.
>
> The license only meant
> that anyone could fork an aircraft, not that everyone could mess with
> the maint
* BARANGER Emmanuel -- Monday 11 July 2011:
> You placed them under the GPL and it's the very principle of this license.
You completely miss the point. This has nothing to do with the license.
It used to be an unwritten law that contributing an aircraft (or other
subsystem) meant to *give*, not to
Le 11/07/2011 14:37, flightgear-devel-requ...@lists.sourceforge.net a
écrit :
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 13:37:15 +0200
> From: Melchior FRANZ
> Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear Base Package branch,
> master, updated. 0b8dee0f4611f0e90478f48d58951995fbe87069
> To: flightg
10 matches
Mail list logo
