Thorsten wrote in Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:18 am:FGMEMBERs is not a fork of flightgear, or an associated parasitic software development.
Whatever you want it to be, it is technically a fork.
Sorry Thorsten
But FGMEMBERS
is not a fork of flightgear.We fork the flightgear aircrafts. Which is technically more like private hangars.
We use Flight-gear simulator and infrastructure for everything. Including testing, developing, flying, and enjoying the planes.
We just develop aircraft for flightgear, and as such we just give our little something to Flightgear universe.
If you are looking for forks or wannabe forks of this fantastic software, please look elsewhere.
- it uses aircraft and development from the official repository (which makes it somewhat different from a private hangar)
Just like private hangars do
- it won't be used in the release process
Just like private hangars do
- it won't use the same standards for the commit process which are used for FGAddon
Just like private hangars do
It is my opinion that if that is your position, you should not be allowed to use FG infrastructure to promote it, you should do it on your own mailing list/forum/ etc.
Sorry again, Thorsten.
Saying that "it should be" has in English a vastly different meaning in English that is saying "it is".
Like when you look a blue wall and say: "It should be red"
FGMEMBERs and FGAddon are not a threat to each other and both currently coexist for the advantages of the FG Aircraft developers and users. When I say that "
it should be a threat", I did explain as well that I mean that the core developers should take a different attitude and evaluate it as an alternative option to their current model of development of aircrafts. I think, if Curt, James, Torsten, Stuart, and whomever else is in a position and knowledge to test and evaluate the possibility of migrating aircraft development to a purely git system, as FGMEMBERs probe is possible; if they, I mean where to just take a more experimental attitude to it, I believe they may change their current position. That, it is my opinion, is a safer, easier, and better method that to look for options for "developing in pure git" but then transfer to "subversion". Such talks are currently going continually on the devel-list at the moment.
Well, clrCoda, legoboyvdlp, sanhozay if there's any remaining doubt left why there's a fight, I fail to see how it could be pointed out more clearly.
I'm not talking about 'threatening' another repository. Curt is not. Someone else is.
I rest my case.
A fight?!If you mean a chess game I'm on.
In any other interpretation:
No thanks.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall