gerard robin wrote:
On lundi 30 mars 2009, George Patterson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:34 AM, LeeE wrote:
If the aircraft is going to be maintained ex-cvs but not maintained
within cvs, then retaining it within cvs just adds another
unmaintained aircraft to the list.
* gerard robin -- Saturday 28 March 2009:
= it is the consequence of a lot of aggressives behaviour against
me ( not my work) coming mainly from the French side, like this,
So it's not me, then? Great!
(Yeah, Franz comes from Latin franciscus -- the French one, but
that doesn't actually apply
On mardi 31 mars 2009, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
SNIP
m.
No comments.
Sure i am wrong everywhere :) :) :) big, very , very big
laughing...
I do accept to be the bad boy of the story , i don't mind about it, since that
story has not any consequence , on the life of the world (
* gerard robin -- Tuesday 31 March 2009:
I do accept to be the bad boy of the story ,
That's not what I said or meant to say. But what you are
also not is an innocent victim of bad boys. As far as I
know, nobody wanted or wants to get rid of you. (But then
again, I only read the French forum
On lundi 30 mars 2009, George Patterson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:34 AM, LeeE l...@spatial.plus.com wrote:
If the aircraft is going to be maintained ex-cvs but not maintained
within cvs, then retaining it within cvs just adds another
unmaintained aircraft to the list.
While
On Monday 30 March 2009, George Patterson wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:34 AM, LeeE l...@xx..com
wrote:
On Sunday 29 March 2009, Ron Jensen wrote:
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 01:55 -0700, syd adams wrote:
I have to agree here ... seems pointless to keep them in cvs
if gerard will
I have to agree here ... seems pointless to keep them in cvs if gerard will
have maintained versions available ...
Also saves everyone's time down the road trying to explain why it's broken
and where to get the current version.:)
Cheers
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 01:55 -0700, syd adams wrote:
I have to agree here ... seems pointless to keep them in cvs if gerard
will have maintained versions available ...
Also saves everyone's time down the road trying to explain why it's
broken and where to get the current version.:)
Cheers
And
On Sunday 29 March 2009, Ron Jensen wrote:
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 01:55 -0700, syd adams wrote:
I have to agree here ... seems pointless to keep them in cvs if
gerard will have maintained versions available ...
Also saves everyone's time down the road trying to explain why
it's broken and
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:34 AM, LeeE l...@spatial.plus.com wrote:
On Sunday 29 March 2009, Ron Jensen wrote:
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 01:55 -0700, syd adams wrote:
I have to agree here ... seems pointless to keep them in cvs if
gerard will have maintained versions available ...
Also saves
Hello,
I take acknowledge of the Curt mail about my whitdraw from the CVS, and of the
different answers to his question.
When i sent the mal to Curt , which inform him that i will not longer
maintain the CVS models ( from me) , my target was ONLY to ask him to delete
my right access , in order
Curtis Olson wrote:
Referencing the attached email from Gerard Robin who has a number of
his aircraft included in FlightGear CVS.
Should we leave these aircraft in CVS as unmaintained entities that
will accumulate cruftiness and work less and less well as FlightGear
development goes
Curt
Leave them in CVS for now. Perhaps someone will be interested enough to
adopt one or more of the orphans and give them a bit of TLC. If not well
they will wither and die over time. No harm done either way.
Pity that such a talented member of the development team should choose to
James Sleeman wrote:
I say yes, until such time as they don't work well enough (or at all),
at which point, they would go. No point taking out good aircraft that
are presently working just because they might stop working at some point
in the future. Cross that bridge when you come to it.
Hi,
I like is aircrafts, Gerad was very used to JSBSim and implemented nice
features like water loading and dumping, pushback and use the ability of JSBSim
on carriers- so why do think to remove these aircrafts? They really shows what
JSBsim and FlightGear is able to do!
There are several
Martin Spott wrote:
James Sleeman wrote:
I say yes, until such time as they don't work well enough (or at all),
at which point, they would go. No point taking out good aircraft that
are presently working just because they might stop working at some point
in the future. Cross that
I wonder if they could be placed in Daves Hanger?
http://home.comcast.net/~davidculp2/hangar/hangar.html
??
Jon
From: Heiko Schulz [mailto:aeitsch...@yahoo.de]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:19 PM
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Fwd
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
I wonder if they could be placed in Dave?s Hanger?
Well, this doesn't change anything about the maintenance status. Dave's
hangar is there to store those models whose license/copyright doesn't
permit to put then imto FlightGear CVS - which obviously is not the
case for
Jon S. Berndt wrote:
I wonder if they could be placed in Dave?s Hanger?
Well, this doesn't change anything about the maintenance status. Dave's
hangar is there to store those models whose license/copyright doesn't
permit to put then imto FlightGear CVS - which obviously is not the
case
19 matches
Mail list logo
