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
-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
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 !
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,
-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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
--- 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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
-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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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
-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)...
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
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
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
-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
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 ...
-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)
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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:
--- 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
-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
-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
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
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 :)
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
54 matches
Mail list logo
