Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Erik Hofman wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: What specific changes are you refering to? Fixes for the Scenery Loading dialog that now loads much faster on low end hardware because it is frame rate independent (thanks to Frederic). Lots of small fixes (joystick configurations, Nasal fuel handling for the Spitfire and fixing the mouse freeze after exit problem). To name a few. Not to mention a number of fixes in plib (including rather important joystick fixes) and fgrun. Actually, all updates to CVS since the release of 0.9.5 have been fixes so far. Erik -- Looking for a new Fokker Jetliner? http://www.rekkof.nl/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Erik Hofman wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: Curtis L. Olson wrote: What specific changes are you refering to? Fixes for the Scenery Loading dialog that now loads much faster on low end hardware because it is frame rate independent (thanks to Frederic). Lots of small fixes (joystick configurations, Nasal fuel handling for the Spitfire and fixing the mouse freeze after exit problem). To name a few. Not to mention a number of fixes in plib (including rather important joystick fixes) and fgrun. Are you sure js changes are fixes ? I saw problem reports recently. I don't update plib for ages and I am not keen to do it after what I read. Moreover, we rely on plib released versions, not CVS, don't we ? Actually, all updates to CVS since the release of 0.9.5 have been fixes so far. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Erik Hofman wrote: Kalle Valo wrote: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was wondering, do others feel that the changes in the last week or so justify a new release (0.9.5-1)? If you are going to make a new release, just don't name it 0.9.5-1, please. That would create lots of confusion for both users and distribution packagers. Good point, I realized that after posting the message. I don't think 0.9.6 would be a good idea, but 0.9.5b could be used (as this scheme is already in use for the Windows binary). Why not simply name it 0.9.5.1 (latest kernel is 2.6.8.1 as well as they found a tiny bug in 2.6.8 version). Letters behind a version could mess with things like a for Alpha, b for Beta, RC for Release Candidate and so on. I think 0.9.5.1 is the only logical explenation to what happened to us and why are we releasing a new version. my 2 cents:) - Matevz ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Frederic Bouvier wrote: Are you sure js changes are fixes ? I saw problem reports recently. They seem to have been fixed. But I wouldn't know, I don't have a joystick. I don't update plib for ages and I am not keen to do it after what I read. Moreover, we rely on plib released versions, not CVS, don't we ? We make have to make sure we are compatible with the latest release version of plib. If package maintainers want to include the CVS version (or even an older version) they are free to do so. Erik -- Searching for a 60 to 100 passenger Jetliner? http://www.rekkof.nl/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Matevz Jekovec wrote: Why not simply name it 0.9.5.1 (latest kernel is 2.6.8.1 as well as they found a tiny bug in 2.6.8 version). Letters behind a version could mess with things like a for Alpha, b for Beta, RC for Release Candidate and so on. I think 0.9.5.1 is the only logical explenation to what happened to us and why are we releasing a new version. To be honest, I don't really mind what it's called like. This might be a good idea after all, as long as there will be an update to the latest release version. There were enough changes (both fixes and updates) to justify one (IMHO). Erik -- http://www.rekkof.nl/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Erik Hofman said: Matevz Jekovec wrote: Why not simply name it 0.9.5.1 (latest kernel is 2.6.8.1 as well as they found a tiny bug in 2.6.8 version). Letters behind a version could mess with things like a for Alpha, b for Beta, RC for Release Candidate and so on. I think 0.9.5.1 is the only logical explenation to what happened to us and why are we releasing a new version. To be honest, I don't really mind what it's called like. This might be a good idea after all, as long as there will be an update to the latest release version. There were enough changes (both fixes and updates) to justify one (IMHO). I almost agree with that :-). It seems like folks are pretty busy now and not a lot is being added to cvs. That means this could be a great time to get a fairly stable release out. It seems like it should just be called 0.9.6 and I we should avoid last minute changes now (otherwise, why bother?) and I have no idea what effort is required on Curt's part to do this. So I won't say much other than we should stay on the same numbering scheme. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Jim Wilson wrote: Erik Hofman said: Matevz Jekovec wrote: Why not simply name it 0.9.5.1 (latest kernel is 2.6.8.1 as well as they found a tiny bug in 2.6.8 version). Letters behind a version could mess with things like a for Alpha, b for Beta, RC for Release Candidate and so on. I think 0.9.5.1 is the only logical explenation to what happened to us and why are we releasing a new version. To be honest, I don't really mind what it's called like. This might be a good idea after all, as long as there will be an update to the latest release version. There were enough changes (both fixes and updates) to justify one (IMHO). I almost agree with that :-). It seems like folks are pretty busy now and not a lot is being added to cvs. That means this could be a great time to get a fairly stable release out. It seems like it should just be called 0.9.6 and I we should avoid last minute changes now (otherwise, why bother?) and I have no idea what effort is required on Curt's part to do this. So I won't say much other than we should stay on the same numbering scheme. I usually plan on a full week of *all* my non-work spare time plus some to get a release out. Right now I'm getting hammered at work and at home so I don't have *any* spare time. I have to go out of town for the entire weekend which means I'll be playing catchup most of next week. Probably early sept. is the soonest I could realistically start thinking about a next release. Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Curtis L. Olson wrote: I usually plan on a full week of *all* my non-work spare time plus some to get a release out. Right now I'm getting hammered at work and at home so I don't have *any* spare time. I have to go out of town for the entire weekend which means I'll be playing catchup most of next week. Probably early sept. is the soonest I could realistically start thinking about a next release. There really is no rush, it gives more time for bug hunting ... Maybe by that time it really is feasible to call it 0.9.6 after all. Erik -- Searching for a 60 to 100 passenger Jetliner? http://www.rekkof.nl/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Erik Hofman wrote: Hi, I was wondering, do others feel that the changes in the last week or so justify a new release (0.9.5-1)? I have the feeling that it does. I realize Curtis is busy for the next two weeks so it has to wait some more, but if this is desired I will hold off any drastic changes to the code until after the release. What do you all think? Erik What specific changes are you refering to? Curt. -- Curtis Olsonhttp://www.flightgear.org/~curt HumanFIRST Program http://www.humanfirst.umn.edu/ FlightGear Project http://www.flightgear.org Unique text:2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was wondering, do others feel that the changes in the last week or so justify a new release (0.9.5-1)? If you are going to make a new release, just don't name it 0.9.5-1, please. That would create lots of confusion for both users and distribution packagers. The reason is that the dash character is used to separate packaging version from upstream version in Linux distribution packages. At least that's how it's in Debian and I think rpm-based distros use the same scheme, don't know about other distros. For example, the current flightgear's version in Debian unstable is 0.9.4-1. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/games/flightgear In my opinion, you could call the new release just 0.9.6. It's not like the numbers would run out anytime soon :) That is, if you use the same numbering scheme as Linux kernel (after 0.9.9 release comes 0.9.10). Thank you for a great simulator! I will order my copy of Stick and Rudder soon and start learning flying. -- Kalle Valo ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Erik Hofman wrote: Hi, I was wondering, do others feel that the changes in the last week or so justify a new release (0.9.5-1)? I have the feeling that it does. I realize Curtis is busy for the next two weeks so it has to wait some more, but if this is desired I will hold off any drastic changes to the code until after the release. What do you all think? Erik What specific changes are you refering to? Fixes for the Scenery Loading dialog that now loads much faster on low end hardware because it is frame rate independent (thanks to Frederic). Lots of small fixes (joystick configurations, Nasal fuel handling for the Spitfire and fixing the mouse freeze after exit problem). To name a few. Overall, the code as it is now feels a lot more comfortable compared to the previous release. We could take some time and fix some more problems, but I didn't announce the previous release for IRIX because it didn't feel right. Erik -- Searching for a 60 to 100 passenger Jetliner? http://www.rekkof.nl/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
Kalle Valo wrote: Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was wondering, do others feel that the changes in the last week or so justify a new release (0.9.5-1)? If you are going to make a new release, just don't name it 0.9.5-1, please. That would create lots of confusion for both users and distribution packagers. Good point, I realized that after posting the message. I don't think 0.9.6 would be a good idea, but 0.9.5b could be used (as this scheme is already in use for the Windows binary). Erik -- Searching for a 60 to 100 passenger Jetliner? http://www.rekkof.nl/ ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] FlightGear 0.9.5-1
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:08:42 +0200 Erik Hofman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kalle Valo wrote: If you are going to make a new release, just don't name it 0.9.5-1, please. That would create lots of confusion for both users and distribution packagers. Good point, I realized that after posting the message. I don't think 0.9.6 would be a good idea, but 0.9.5b could be used (as this scheme is already in use for the Windows binary). Debian is one of the distros that use numbers after the - for local changes to an upstream version, packaging changes, etc. Lots of other Debian packages have a or b or whatever added to the upstream version number without a problem. So I agree that this should work fine. -c -- Chris Metzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove snip-me. to email) As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized. - Chief Luther Standing Bear pgpSjjddt1m5p.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
