Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases
Mathias Fr??hlich wrote: > I am currently reviewing our models and will provide a patch later this > evening. I'd be glad to 'maintain' a temporary PLIB package for FlightGear if people welcome this effort but I don't want to cross anyone's plans, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases
Martin, If so, you might want to include some updated 3d models. For example the 737 is still flat shaded and the adf instrument is still ordered in in the wrong direction in current cvs base package. I am currently reviewing our models and will provide a patch later this evening. Greetings Mathias On Dienstag 12 Oktober 2004 19:14, Martin Spott wrote: > Martin Spott wrote: > > I'm asking just to find out: Do we all agree that it makes much sense > > to build the upcoming binary releases with a "crease-patched" version > > of current PLIB CVS ? > > Ahem, for this purpose I'll have put a patched version here within the > next couple of minutes that might serve as a reference if people tend > to agree :-) > > ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Source/plib-20041010-crease.tar.gz > > > Martin. -- Mathias FrÃhlich, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.6.tar.gz, NONE,
Martin Spott wrote: "Curtis L. Olson" wrote: Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/releases In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv18174 Added Files: FlightGear-0.9.6.tar.gz Log Message: Official source release for v0.9.6 I'm asking just to find out: Do we all agree that it makes much sense to build the upcoming binary releases with a "crease-patched" version of current PLIB CVS ? I will Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases
Selon Jon Stockill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Martin Spott wrote: > > Martin Spott wrote: > > > > > >>I'm asking just to find out: Do we all agree that it makes much sense > >>to build the upcoming binary releases with a "crease-patched" version > >>of current PLIB CVS ? > > > > > > Ahem, for this purpose I'll have put a patched version here within the > > next couple of minutes that might serve as a reference if people tend > > to agree :-) > > > > ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Source/plib-20041010-crease.tar.gz > > Another question related to the recent performance increases - did the > dlists patch make it into the final release? Yes, and it is mentionned in the NEWS files -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases
Martin Spott wrote: > I'm asking just to find out: Do we all agree that it makes much sense > to build the upcoming binary releases with a "crease-patched" version > of current PLIB CVS ? Ahem, for this purpose I'll have put a patched version here within the next couple of minutes that might serve as a reference if people tend to agree :-) ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Source/plib-20041010-crease.tar.gz Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases
Martin Spott wrote: Martin Spott wrote: I'm asking just to find out: Do we all agree that it makes much sense to build the upcoming binary releases with a "crease-patched" version of current PLIB CVS ? Ahem, for this purpose I'll have put a patched version here within the next couple of minutes that might serve as a reference if people tend to agree :-) ftp://ftp.uni-duisburg.de/FlightGear/Source/plib-20041010-crease.tar.gz Another question related to the recent performance increases - did the dlists patch make it into the final release? -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.6.tar.gz, NONE,
Martin Spott wrote: "Curtis L. Olson" wrote: Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/releases In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv18174 Added Files: FlightGear-0.9.6.tar.gz Log Message: Official source release for v0.9.6 I'm asking just to find out: Do we all agree that it makes much sense to build the upcoming binary releases with a "crease-patched" version of current PLIB CVS ? I've tried it on 4 systems now and not run into any problems. It certainly makes sense to me. -- Jon Stockill [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.6.tar.gz, NONE,
Martin Spott wrote: > "Curtis L. Olson" wrote: > > Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/releases > > In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv18174 > > > Added Files: > > FlightGear-0.9.6.tar.gz > > Log Message: > > Official source release for v0.9.6 > > I'm asking just to find out: Do we all agree that it makes much sense > to build the upcoming binary releases with a "crease-patched" version > of current PLIB CVS ? My Win32 build has it. I test it again and then send it to Curt. -Fred ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
David Megginson wrote: > I agree with Curt. There are two basic strategies for releasing: > 2. Release often, testing every release only lightly. > I think that #2 works better for most cases What he said. One way of looking at it is this: The goal isn't to produce individual releases with the greatest quality, it's to produce the best software we can with the resources available. Waiting on releases for testing means that developers have to put off contributions, bug reports on those contributions then come in later than they would otherwise, the bug fixes go in later and the next release gets pushed back. We end up doing less development and making fewer releases, which is *bad* for software quality in the long run. Andy ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
Jim Wilson wrote: David Megginson said: I would support a 4-week code freeze before 1.0, however, and I do think it's just about time for a 1.0. We're close, maybe next release, but I think we need to get the subsystem/initialization thing straightened out first. Fred's fix for the tilemanager last week raised an issue about something that might be missing in the subsystem design. Maybe it's time to start some sort of to-do list with issues that _have_ to be addressed for a 1.0 release. I agree we're close to be able to earn the 1.0 version number. Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
David Megginson said: > Curtis L. Olson wrote: > > > The other thing to consider is everyone seems to have one more fix > > they'd like to get in. If we waited for everyone to be happy, we > > literally would never be able to have a release. At some point we have > > to draw the line and ship. The 0.9.4 release is simply the current > > state of cvs as of today, so if more people tried the cvs version and > > made patches along the way, we'd have less surprises on release day. > > I agree with Curt. There are two basic strategies for releasing: > > 1. Release rarely, testing every release exhaustively first. > > 2. Release often, testing every release only lightly. > > I think that #2 works better for most cases -- many bugs won't show up > during testing by the members of the developers' list anyway, so it's best > to get the release out into the wild and find the real problems earlier > rather than later. At one time I think I would have leaned toward #1 but have since become a #2 fan. I was going to say this yesterday, but I also realize that doing #2 often involves quite a time commitment. Would it make sense to run a nightly script for folks that don't run cvs? Or is that just a waste of bandwidth? Maybe binaries are the ticket. How about various team members running nightly build scripts and then uploading the results somewhere? > I know that some people like the idea of separate development and stable > branches, but unless we're dealing with critical core infrastructure like a > kernel or Web server, it's hard to motivate people to spend all the extra > time to backport bug fixes and OS compability changes to the stable branch: > it often ends up that the development branch is more stable than the > so-called stable branch anyway, while making twice as much work for the > maintainers. That's right. Maybe some day simgear, but I would think that backporting efforts would be driven by the requirements of the backporters rather than anticipated as a requirement. > I would support a 4-week code freeze before 1.0, however, and I do think > it's just about time for a 1.0. > We're close, maybe next release, but I think we need to get the subsystem/initialization thing straightened out first. Fred's fix for the tilemanager last week raised an issue about something that might be missing in the subsystem design. Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
Curtis L. Olson wrote: The other thing to consider is everyone seems to have one more fix they'd like to get in. If we waited for everyone to be happy, we literally would never be able to have a release. At some point we have to draw the line and ship. The 0.9.4 release is simply the current state of cvs as of today, so if more people tried the cvs version and made patches along the way, we'd have less surprises on release day. I agree with Curt. There are two basic strategies for releasing: 1. Release rarely, testing every release exhaustively first. 2. Release often, testing every release only lightly. I think that #2 works better for most cases -- many bugs won't show up during testing by the members of the developers' list anyway, so it's best to get the release out into the wild and find the real problems earlier rather than later. I know that some people like the idea of separate development and stable branches, but unless we're dealing with critical core infrastructure like a kernel or Web server, it's hard to motivate people to spend all the extra time to backport bug fixes and OS compability changes to the stable branch: it often ends up that the development branch is more stable than the so-called stable branch anyway, while making twice as much work for the maintainers. I would support a 4-week code freeze before 1.0, however, and I do think it's just about time for a 1.0. All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
Martin Spott said: > "Curtis L. Olson" wrote: > > Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/releases > > In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv13253 > > > Added Files: > > FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz > > Log Message: > > Official 0.9.4 release. > > Oooops, I wonder if we ever get the chance to do real testing before a > release. I'm very well aware that this is primarily Curt's project but > on the other hand these surprisingly short pre-release stages make it > very hard for peripheral efforts to keep up with the release process. > "W a a a!" Do you ever have anything nice to say? :-) This is no doubt the best FlightGear release ever. Congrats to all involved! Best, Jim ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
Jon S Berndt wrote: On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:28:12 -0600 "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin Spott wrote: Oooops, I wonder if we ever get the chance to do real testing before a release. I'm very well aware that this is primarily Curt's project I apologize if the schedule was a bit compressed, but I have to work within the constraints of my own spare time too, since I have a full time job and a family to juggle along with everything else. I have to take my spare time slots when I can get them. It can take several hours to roll out a new release, significantly more than that if it's been a while since the last release. I estimate I put 30-40 hours into getting the 0.9.3 release ready. Curt. I can certainly sympathize with this, but does it make things harder to let the pre-releases sit there a bit longer, though? Even if it turns out that an opportune time passes by and they have to sit there a couple of days or a week longer, is that a bad thing? The only bad thing is if in that extra 2 weeks or so, we get a bunch more additions and we have to start the process all over again ... We already have people holding off putting in new features and the longer we wait, the harder it is to hold these off ... especially when I'm not the only one with cvs write access. All things are possible of course, but I had the time today, and don't know when I'll get a several hour chunk of time again in the near future. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:28:12 -0600 "Curtis L. Olson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martin Spott wrote: Oooops, I wonder if we ever get the chance to do real testing before a release. I'm very well aware that this is primarily Curt's project I apologize if the schedule was a bit compressed, but I have to work within the constraints of my own spare time too, since I have a full time job and a family to juggle along with everything else. I have to take my spare time slots when I can get them. It can take several hours to roll out a new release, significantly more than that if it's been a while since the last release. I estimate I put 30-40 hours into getting the 0.9.3 release ready. Curt. I can certainly sympathize with this, but does it make things harder to let the pre-releases sit there a bit longer, though? Even if it turns out that an opportune time passes by and they have to sit there a couple of days or a week longer, is that a bad thing? Jon ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
Martin Spott wrote: Oooops, I wonder if we ever get the chance to do real testing before a release. I'm very well aware that this is primarily Curt's project but on the other hand these surprisingly short pre-release stages make it very hard for peripheral efforts to keep up with the release process. BTW, in the meantime did anyone find the access data for the freshmeat account ? We didn't announce the pre-release but we should at least announce the release. We already failed to announce 0.9.3, I apologize if the schedule was a bit compressed, but I have to work within the constraints of my own spare time too, since I have a full time job and a family to juggle along with everything else. I have to take my spare time slots when I can get them. It can take several hours to roll out a new release, significantly more than that if it's been a while since the last release. I estimate I put 30-40 hours into getting the 0.9.3 release ready. The other thing to consider is everyone seems to have one more fix they'd like to get in. If we waited for everyone to be happy, we literally would never be able to have a release. At some point we have to draw the line and ship. The 0.9.4 release is simply the current state of cvs as of today, so if more people tried the cvs version and made patches along the way, we'd have less surprises on release day. Curt. -- Curtis Olson Intelligent Vehicles Lab FlightGear Project Twin Cities[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
On Friday 26 March 2004 23:43, Erik Hofman wrote: > Martin Spott wrote: > > Oooops, I wonder if we ever get the chance to do real testing before a > > release. I'm very well aware that this is primarily Curt's project but > > on the other hand these surprisingly short pre-release stages make it > > very hard for peripheral efforts to keep up with the release process. > > Well, I've been on release alert for nearly two weeks now. Yes, but this 2 week alert was for the pre release intended to fix "big" bugs in cvs. For the pre release you need at least another full week for testing. > As far as I > can see this is probably the best release since 0.8.0 Oh, ok then we're getting into the right direction. ;) Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
On Friday 26 March 2004 23:35, Martin Spott wrote: > "Curtis L. Olson" wrote: > > Update of /var/cvs/FlightGear-0.9/releases > > In directory baron:/tmp/cvs-serv13253 > > > > Added Files: > > FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz > > Log Message: > > Official 0.9.4 release. > > Oooops, I wonder if we ever get the chance to do real testing before a > release. I'm very well aware that this is primarily Curt's project but > on the other hand these surprisingly short pre-release stages make it > very hard for peripheral efforts to keep up with the release process. I agree with that. The pre release version 0.9.4.pre2 was released on March 23.2004. This means that there were only 3 days time for testing thats by far too less in my opinion. And when new users who test flightgear for their first time find a terrible bug that causes flightgear to crash then this will be their first insight and opinion they will get about flightgear. :( Best Regards, Oliver C. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: [Flightgear-cvslogs] CVS: releases FlightGear-0.9.4.tar.gz, NONE,
Martin Spott wrote: Oooops, I wonder if we ever get the chance to do real testing before a release. I'm very well aware that this is primarily Curt's project but on the other hand these surprisingly short pre-release stages make it very hard for peripheral efforts to keep up with the release process. Well, I've been on release alert for nearly two weeks now. As far as I can see this is probably the best release since 0.8.0 Erik ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
