Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Hooray » Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:54 am

Jabberwocky: I politely, but strongly, sugggest that you look up the terminology, and meaning, of the word "official" - and if that doesn't satisfy you, I suggest that you stop using any of the infrastructure that you don't consider "official" by your own standards - including this very forum, as that may hopefully help bring the point across.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:02 am

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
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Jabberwocky » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:37 am

As I wrote you after our first clash in PM: "I have bad news for you, I am here to stay!" And you scared more than enough potential away from FG, potential this project could well use.
Jabberwocky
Retired
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:36 pm
Callsign: JWOCKY
Version: 3.0.0
OS: Ubuntu 14.04

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Thorsten » Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:51 am

There is no need to request for authors "authorization". The authorization is already given. As soon as one releases GPL, the authorization to do it is granted. I will say "graciously" "generously" "altruistically" granted. And I would not ever call such advantages provided by GPL "abhorrent" .


(You may want to read the 'abhorrent' sentence again... chances are you didn't catch its meaning.)

I think you're confusing authorization with consent. GPL legally allows you to do what you do without obtaining my consent, or even against it. That does not mean that by publishing GPL you automatically have my consent.

You're claiming that FGMEMBERS is not a parasitic development - yet what I can see is that you copy work regardless of the consent of the authors, with the sole purpose of enhancing the appeal of your repository. How, please, is this not parasitic?

I would understand if you copy work if people want to work with it. But I'm not seeing that.

I have repeatedly stated that I don't share your goals and that I see what you're doing here in the forum as divisive. Therefore, I ask you please to remove my work from your repository. I don't want to be part of this.

I'm not asking you to remove anything I have freely given to you, I am asking you to remove something you have grabbed against my stated intention to not make it widely available yet. I don't think you should single-handedly get to make such decisions without consulting anyone - this would seem, to use a metaphor you are yourself so fond of - tyrannical.

Let me stress again that I recognize that the GPL gives you a legal right, but that you do not have my consent, nor ever cared for it. Yet if you have anything like the respect for the work of authors you profess to have, please respect my wish and remove my contribution from your repository.

Thanks.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11748
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby DFaber » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:44 am

KL-666 wrote in Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:30 pm:Fgaddon as i see it is (meant to be in the future) a repository of quality planes that can proudly be presented to users. Any plane that meets the requirements (also from fgmembers) can become a fgaddon plane. Of course there can be always disagreement about meeting the quality criteria. But then the plane can still be straight downloaded from fgmembers, just like we do now from countless obscure private hangars.


There is a misunderstanding in the word "quality" in use here. FGAddon is a place for development too. So it is of course possible to commit unfinished/early state aircraft. Quality in this case means it shouldn't be littered with termporary files, safety copies, files not in use, etc. A basic 3d Model is fine too, if it shows potential and doesn't look like a 3 year old child has done it.

It's a personal decision at which time a model is submitted.

Greetings
Detlef Faber
FlightGear Development:
http://flightgear-de.net

my 3D-Art:
https://www.sol2500.net
DFaber
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Aachen, Germany
Version: GIT
OS: Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:47 am

You are welcome.
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
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Thorsten » Thu Apr 30, 2015 7:56 am

Thank you, I appreciate that.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 11748
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby KL-666 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:57 am

Hello Detlef,

If Fgaddon is a place of development, i expect:

1) If i start working on an aircraft, i can push it to Fgaddon tomorrow
2) If anyone else likes to work on it he can push his own branch
3) The aircraft owner(s) decide what to merge in the main branch
4) Base package maintainers choose which (main) branches/versions to pull
5) Advanced users choose any branch, main or user branch, to fly and/or test
6) Basic users choose the selected "quality" versions of aircraft offered in the base package

This is not the only way of course, there are many different ways to set up the structure of branches/versions. The main thing is that everyone can start an aircraft and anyone else can develop on it, and can push their branch to the central repository for others to test.

Is that the case with Fgaddon?

If not everyone can push their new aircraft or branches of them, how do you plan to decide on which "unfinished/early state aircraft" can be admitted?

The decision can not be based on "littered with temporary files, safety copies, files not in use, etc", because no one needs to do that when using version control. And if someone does, the user branch is simply not merged in the main branch until it is cleaned up. And if even that goes wrong, then the main branch will not be chosen to be included in the set of "quality" aircraft.

Btw. i specifically use the word main branch, because master is yet another branch.

Kind regards, Vincent
KL-666
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:32 pm

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Torsten » Thu Apr 30, 2015 12:58 pm

KL-666 wrote in Thu Apr 30, 2015 11:57 am:1) If i start working on an aircraft, i can push it to Fgaddon tomorrow
2) If anyone else likes to work on it he can push his own branch
3) The aircraft owner(s) decide what to merge in the main branch
4) Base package maintainers choose which (main) branches/versions to pull
5) Advanced users choose any branch, main or user branch, to fly and/or test
6) Basic users choose the selected "quality" versions of aircraft offered in the base package

Is that the case with Fgaddon?


That's not the way we are used to using branches but I'd say this is an interesting approach. So yes, why not use FGAddon that way.
Some restrictions apply because it's a shared repository, but I think they are reasonable.
For 1) Depends on who that 'I' is. I grant write access to FGAddon if I have the impression that the person requesting it is able to communicate in a reasonable way, behaves in a way that it fits the common goals of the project and seems to have a good technical knowledge.
For 2) Certainly not "anybody" is allowed to push to FGAddon, 1) applies here, too.
For 3) Yes, no problem
For 4) Does not apply for FGAddon. If you merge into the main branch as the aircraft "owner", it's in. FGAddon has nothing to do with the base package (that's FGData and only contains the c172)
For 5) Yes
For 6) See 4)

The only limiting factor is here, that people to get commit rights to FGAddon have to go through some kind of preflight check. I have to admit, there are no documented rules how to pass that check, but I think they are reasonable and I am usually very generous when granting rights to FGAddon.

Torsten
flightgear.org - where development happens.
User avatar
Torsten
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: near Hamburg, Germany
Callsign: offline
Version: next
OS: Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby KL-666 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:41 pm

Hello Torsten,

Base package is probably a wrong chosen word. What i mean is a set of selected aircraft that appear for extra download, like on the main flightgear aircraft download page.

If such selection is made, instead of sending all aircraft to the main download page, the "preflight check" does not need to be so stringent. [edit] There is no need to worry about how far a certain aircraft is developed, because it is not immediately in the quality set [/edit] Basically anyone who requests an account could get it (maybe by recommendation of an existing account holder). If the new developer is only there to fool around, it is soon enough discovered (complaining aircraft owners) and the account closed along with removing his branches.

Kind regards, Vincent
KL-666
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:32 pm

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby IAHM-COL » Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:53 pm

@Torsten (Dreyer)

So yes, why not use FGAddon that way.


Corrrect me, please, if I am mistaken, but if you were to create a branch to add an alternative version, or a parallel author version of 1 aircraft; Given that FGAddon really is only one monolithic 28GB repository, you will need to branch the whole repository to host "alternative" aircraft version. You do not use FGAddon that way, basically, because it already lacks the expandability required to allow that.

I just do not foresee as practicable to branch the whole FGAddon, to hold a second version of the Douglas-DC3, for example.

1) Depends on who that 'I' is.


(In addition to the fact that commit access -the subversion way- also lacks the proper expandability for a growing community of the size of FG)

Also, about commit permissions. This has been the point I iterate several too many times in the devel list, until it drove me out of written priviledges. Really, the attitude of who "I" is does not create Collaborators. Does not create Aircraft developers. Do not create people advocated for the community. It creates a few classes of undesirable people.

You have the egomaniacs, that believe they are better than everyone else (as demostrated also on their commit priviledges), and as demostrated by the fact that they can push people around, and promote their point of view over others no -yet- committers
Then you have the control freaks, that seize control on the decisions of whether a plane qualifies a set of quality controls (written or unwritten), or the ones that seize the control of classes separations (who writes, and who does not).
It also create the class of the punishers or enforces: The dully policemen presto to remove commit access, or to mitigate errors (or add prehooks that prevent "so -called" undesired commits.
And then you have the class of the overcritical, that come into the project proposing alternatives, and attempting to bring discourse, while filibustering or being filibustering on the same level, driving the whole conversation away of the topics that really matter and are really technical.

On a git alternative you do not need these classes. All you need is to strenght peoples ability to fork, freely modify, and pull request for evaluation. (evaluation by whomever a current aircraft maintainer is). Not all work is good. Good work can be merged into the master branch while encouraging cooperativity and breeding the next generation of aircraft maintainers. Less than "acceptable" for the master branch work, gets isolated in a separate branch, where the developer is encouraged to keep the development of such proposal. Either it progresses to the wished quality, or become a separate, unabashed alternative version of the aircraft for flightgear.

I had said before: I think it is a win-win.
Last edited by IAHM-COL on Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Retired
 
Posts: 4064
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Callsign: HK-424D or ICAO4243
Version: 3.7-git
OS: Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Torsten » Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:55 pm

KL-666 wrote in Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:41 pm:Base package is probably a wrong chosen word. What i mean is a set of selected aircraft that appear for extra download, like on the main flightgear aircraft download page.

Ah, ok. Understood.

Currently, everything that is in the release branch ends up at the download page. The release branches are created on Jan/Jul, 17th from everything that is in trunk by that date. The aircraft download page has a filter based on aircraft rating. I believe that is enough control and I don't see a reason to change this.

FGAddon is for development, it's not a playground. Whatever get's commited there, should be pushed at least with the intention to reach production level "sometimes in the future". Temporary files, backup copies etc. shall not enter the repository.

KL-666 wrote in Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:41 pm:Basically anyone who requests an account could get it (maybe by recommendation of an existing account holder). If the new developer is only there to fool around, it is soon enough discovered (complaining aircraft owners) and the account closed along with removing his branches.

With the restrictions posted above: yes.
And for the second part: The account of the user who recommended the fool gets deleted, too :-)

Summary: I can only encourage everybody willing to work on an aircraft to register with sourceforge and send me an e-mail. State your intentions, describe what you are willing to work on. If you have some references, don't be shy and attach those, too. Don't forget to mention your SF username and you will end up with more responsibilities than you have asked for.

Torsten
flightgear.org - where development happens.
User avatar
Torsten
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: near Hamburg, Germany
Callsign: offline
Version: next
OS: Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Torsten » Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:04 pm

IAHM-COL wrote in Thu Apr 30, 2015 2:53 pm:Corrrect me, please,

As long as you are unable or unwilling to choose a language that is not offensive, I am not discussing anything with you.

Torsten
flightgear.org - where development happens.
User avatar
Torsten
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: near Hamburg, Germany
Callsign: offline
Version: next
OS: Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby Buckaroo » Thu Apr 30, 2015 3:53 pm

Jabberwocky wrote in Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:07 pm:The point for both repositories was actually to provide a place where users can find all aircrafts or at least most of them. ... I am in FGMEMBERS now. Nobody forced me. And I don't need to "pull people over" or "pressure" them. If you are happy at FGADDON, stay there, no problem for anybody in FGMEMBERS.


Howdy Jabberwocky,

I think I understand, and joining FGMEMBERS is a choice and that is good. By that same notion, I'd like to have the choice of volunteering my work for FGMEMBERS. As things seem to be at present, that choice is not mine, even if my work is hosted outside of FGADDON at my private site.

If I re-license some of my CC efforts as GPL, it would be my decision to contribute those efforts to FGADDON. (James once set me up with rights to do so in the former repository scheme.) I don't believe anyone has contributed a work to FGADDON against the wishes of the author (if so, it is a rare case). But as Israel indicates, FGMEMBERS will actively seek out such works and acquire them, viewing permission as already been granted by GPL.

Releasing a work as GPL is not quite the same as actively donating it to the community via a community-endorsed repository. If I have a choice to donate to a community, then I feel privileged to make that gift to the community.

It's a fine point perhaps, and I can understand if some people don't understand or agree with it. But speaking for myself, if I believed it would be my decision to put my efforts in FGMEMBERS and that FGMEMBERS would abide by my decision if I declined, I would feel much more positive about it.

-Buck
Callsign: Buckaro(o)
Author: Lockheed 1049H Constellation, Grumman Goose, MD-81, Edgley Optica, Velocity XL RG, YASim Guide
User avatar
Buckaroo
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:45 am
Location: Bloomington IN USA
Callsign: Buckaro(o)
Version: 2.10
OS: Windows & Linux

Re: FGAddon vs. FGMEMBERS, bus factors etc.

Postby KL-666 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 4:15 pm

Well here we are. I say what i would expect from an open development environment, and there are two answers:
- Torsten: it exists to a great extent
- Israel: can not be done in svn

It is a pity i do not know svn very well. When we wanted to move from cvs, we evaluated svn and git. Our conclusion was that there are two completely different thoughts on version control. On the one hand cvs and svn, and on the other git. The thing that made us choose git is the ease of branching and merging. Now we make branches for everything anyone wants to try out. With cvs we experienced branching as a horror to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

If our analysis is correct svn may be more flexible at things like branching than cvs, but not as good as git. Even if svn is maybe second ideal for open development, it can still be good enough for the requirements. Most important is to first have the requirements clear. Then talk about the detail of which tool is adequate (best is not necessary).

I get the feeling that this whole debate is about having different requirements in mind. On the one hand total freedom, but without risking to loose good work (can technically be accomplished). On the other hand a fear of mess, so a bit more gate-keeping is desired (can also technically be accomplished).

All i know is that people coming from a cvs/svn background sometimes narrow their thinking about the requirements because they already think of technical limitations. Where people from a git background say: Do not worry, the sky is the limit. These different worlds have a hard time to understand eachother.

Kind regards, Vincent
KL-666
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest