Board index FlightGear The FlightGear project

2019.1 release

Questions about the FlightGear organisation, website, wiki etc.

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby Thorsten » Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:56 pm

I believe this policy is against the average user


I believe you're talking utter nonsense now. Repository branches are the solution, the launcher automatically identifies from where to download, and power users who do repository checkouts just have to deal with versioning themselves.

(The average user never checks out stuff from your repository, he doesn't go beyond the launcher)

So now he needs 2 versions which do not friendly coexist.


Yeah - usually you have to use the same branch in FG, SG, FGData and FGAddon. Once you mix branches, you tend to have problems. That's always been the case.

This is nonsense and I'm loosing my patience with the attitude of not helping the users.


How a well-tested LTS release is not helping the user remains your mystery. You're in fact not arguing for the user, you're arguing that everyone should adapt to your workflow here, sorry.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10986
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby Octal450 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:06 pm

Dear Thorsten,
Again you are not understanding what I am saying.

The average user will not know how to maintain multiple FG versions on his PC.

(The average user never checks out stuff from your repository, he doesn't go beyond the launcher)

Based on statistics I don't agree with you on that - what is your definition of average? I am not talking like a new user who just install FG the first time.

How a well-tested LTS release is not helping the user remains your mystery. You're in fact not arguing for the user, you're arguing that everyone should adapt to your workflow here, sorry.

That isn't what I said. I said multiple versions of FG don't help the user. Its confusing! So again you don't listen/understand what I write. I gave my workflow as an example - do you know where I learned this flow from? By observing the patterns of many developers that I was watching when I was learning development! Its common workflow! But I gave as an example - if I tell everybody they must do what I say then I am dictator - who wants that?

Kind Regards,
Josh
Octal450
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby Thorsten » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:53 pm

The average user will not know how to maintain multiple FG versions on his PC.


That's actually easy and yes, so I think he does know. You just install them, and they'll sort themselves into different directories. Works perfectly fine here.

But it's not needed.

Based on statistics I don't agree with you on that - what is your definition of average?


Based on TS access statistics there's something like 250.000 FG users. Based on my website statistics, there's ~60 downloads of the Shuttle manual a month - so I can safely conclude that the average FG user does not fly the Shuttle much.

So if you have 50.000 downloads from your repository, then you may represent the average user, if you have 1000, then you clearly do not.

That isn't what I said. I said multiple versions of FG don't help the user. Its confusing!


Should we discard the nightlies to make it less confusing? :D Should we wipte all traces of past FG versions from the web? Should we ask Linux repositories to clean old FG versions from their servers as soon as a new version is around?

Sorry, but that's ridiculous - there's always been different FG versions, there always will - people just need to pick the one they want - if they are very adventurous, a nightly, if somewhat less a technical, if they want least trouble the LTS, if they're happy with their 2016 version they keep that.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10986
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby Octal450 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:54 pm

You don't understand anything I write.
Why?

Kind Regards,
Josh
Octal450
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby Octal450 » Tue Jul 30, 2019 3:55 pm

Did I say to remove nightlies? I'm talking about releases that most people will use.

Its not a complicated concept what I am saying! FG been doing this since 1997!

I am losing patience!
Octal450
 
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:51 pm

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby legoboyvdlp » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:00 pm

If you are saying most people will use 2019.1 -- that is exactly right, given it is advertised as the latest release.

Perhaps if it was only available in the style of a release candidate it would make more sense :)

Quite frankly most people will see -- new release out: let's get it -- they don't know that its not perfectly stable given it hasn't been heavily advertised as being such.
User avatar
legoboyvdlp
 
Posts: 7009
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:28 am
Callsign: YV-LEGO
Version: 2018.3.1
OS: Windows 10 HP

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby wlbragg » Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:25 pm

I must be once again confused?

Note that all the minor point releases - assuming that 4 releases were to be made in the year that would be 2019.1.x, 2019.2.x, 2019.3.x, and 2019.4.x - are considered stable releases. It is just that the 3rd release of the year is designed to be a long-term stable release


So 2018.3.2 is the "2018" LTS release, we are patching it to the new 2018.3.3 which is what will ship with FG. No new features, only fixing anything that broke along the way (METAR) or new bugs that were discovered.

We have not hit a 2019.3 release yet for "2019", so it is not yet in the LTS slot and thus not going to be shipped with FG.

When do we officially make current "next", ie: 2019.2 into 2019.3 and thus ship it with FG.
By my way of logical thinking it should be around the corner, say in the next few months?
What will trigger that?

Do I have this right in my head?

Josh,
Even though it may seem like your efforts are sitting there waisting away, it is a matter of perspective. By the time your current work is in the LTS that ships with FG your going to have a whole cycle of new additions that will also get to sit there waiting for LTS releases to catch up to "next".
Nature of the beast!
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby wlbragg » Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:00 pm

Quite frankly most people will see -- new release out: let's get it

I agree, and they can do that and be just fine, also they would be contributing to the next LTS release as they would be reporting any issues.

I'm still dumbfounded that everything I have done since 2018.3.0 is not shipped in a "current" FG package. I have been working from and using "next" since I started here and I never really understood the details of the releases.
When i hear were making a 2019.1 release I assume it is what is being published as official and in the current package. I didn't know we had a LTS.

So when did 2018.3.0 come out and was it then the "official" FG branch that was packaged and distributed to the masses?

That lead me to another question.

I have a really important bug fix for the c172p (crash of the sim). It is caused from work done in the 2019.1 or 2019.2 branch/release. I don't ever want that bug in a LTS, so I need to get it corrected before when?
I assume there is a period of time between 2019.2 and the creation of the LTS 2019.3 that we only take bug fixes. Yet as a developer working out of our current 2019.2, I could have introduce that bug and not discovered it right up to the time we create 2019.3. I guess that is why we allow back port of bug fixes. Answered my own question actually. :)

So I guess, all in all this cycle of releases isn't illogical. It also isn't like we are way behind on releases so long as 2019.3 is indeed created and shipped anytime in 2019.

Anyone, if I have any of this wrong, please advise.
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby Thorsten » Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:08 pm

If you are saying most people will use 2019.1 -- that is exactly right, given it is advertised as the latest release.


That's conjecture because it actually isn't advertized very actively - 2019.3 will be.

Perhaps if it was only available in the style of a release candidate it would make more sense


That's what it de-facto is, but since nobody tested things named 'release candidate', the idea was to change the name to 'technical release' or so that people actually test it and report back - so by 2019.3 we would have the feedback needed.

Quite frankly most people will see -- new release out: let's get it -- they don't know that its not perfectly stable given it hasn't been heavily advertised as being such.


It's clearly not advertized as stable, nor has it even been announced yet on the webpage, nor has it been featured in an article - if people download and test it, that's intended, but if we're not advertizing it as 'the stable release to have' we can explain in case of problems that it isn't the stable release to have.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10986
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby F-TLS13 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 5:43 am

Since the 2019.1 has not been built and updated in the Fedora package repository yet for Fedora 30, I have build the RPMs and uploaded them: https://transfernow.net/ddl/fg2019fedora30
The link will expire in 6 days.

I plan to update the wiki with build instruction for Fedora 30 using containers, so that fellow Fedora users can build their own 2019. 1 version (or -next for that matter) easily.

I have seen the frustration around the release plan. I think we should have some sort of "Public Relation" people around the project to make think more "user-friendly", i.e. with more guidance on what to expect from each version.
It can be a great way to contribute to the project for non technical people.
Being a developer myself I know I am the the greatest person when we have to explain things to end-users and I'm glad other people carry that for me.

Many thanks to every person contributing directly or not to this great project!
F-TLS13
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:18 pm
Callsign: F-TLS13
Version: 2019.1
OS: Fedora 30

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby Thorsten » Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:05 am

I have seen the frustration around the release plan. I think we should have some sort of "Public Relation" people around the project to make think more "user-friendly", i.e. with more guidance on what to expect from each version.


I seriously doubt that this will help, since we have the current situation that after a lengthy discussion and agreement on the mailing list, contributors here (and in their social media outlets,...) still do not present this agreed-upon plan but feel free to re-open the release plan discussion.

So any official PR is basically just one more voice in this cacophony (I do lots of FG PR, probably the majority of it, I have intentionally not pre-announced the current release on the website on the grounds mentioned. In fact, the current philosophy with one especially stable release is properly announced on the FG website as well. ..)

Basically the required solution would be that contributors accept the outcome of a discussion and explain that as the official position to others - even when they don't think it's the best thing themselves - rather than everyone explaining his own spin. But such a mindset is hard to find these days it seems...

Instead, what we actually get from contributors are statements like

We will require FlightGear 2019.1 or later for these - we understand that the release has been called "not fully stable" by the core team and you should use 2018.3.3 - but this is nonsense and we will not be supporting multiple "releases".


- and calling core team statements nonsense and contributors withdrawing their support from the official release plan sure makes things hard to understand for the common user.

So - as PR person - what exactly should I do? Start blasting the IDG announcement as nonsense, see who wins a propaganda war? Ignore the decision reached by the core team because some contributors do not agree with it? See the problem?
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10986
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby F-TLS13 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:21 am

The last part of my post seems very naive to me now. I don't know how PRs should handle that.

I get the point. I'll try to talk less about subjects I don't master :)
Expect to hear from me when I'll get to publish something regarding the build process.

Have a nice day
F-TLS13
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:18 pm
Callsign: F-TLS13
Version: 2019.1
OS: Fedora 30

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby Helipilot » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:33 am

Thorsten wrote in Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:08 pm:
If you are saying most people will use 2019.1 -- that is exactly right, given it is advertised as the latest release.


That's conjecture because it actually isn't advertized very actively - 2019.3 will be.

….
It's clearly not advertized as stable, nor has it even been announced yet on the webpage, nor has it been featured in an article - if people download and test it, that's intended, but if we're not advertizing it as 'the stable release to have' we can explain in case of problems that it isn't the stable release to have.


That's not the hole truth seen from an amateur (like me) point of view. When You subscribe to Sourgeforce "new version alert", you are getting a link which automatic starts download 2019.x without any warning about stability. I would call that very active advertising since Sourgeforce is FGs download site, even if the advertisement is not directly from FG. It took me quite a while studying the forum (which i believe is not an average User (non expert, amateur - choose your preferred term) behavior), to discover, that 2019.x is not yet stable and that 2018.3 has been updated with respect to METAR, which I have been waiting for since I found out, that it was broken.

My conclusion is, that for people who just want to fly the best available version without caring about how things behind it works, the versioning is rather confusing. I know the construction behind the development an I am very grateful to those who makes it possible to use this fantastic simulator. May I nevertheless suggest a small news-subscription, where things like that is distributed in very brief terms. I gather that would be extremely helpful. (If it already exist, please let me know).

Best regard to all
Leo
Helipilot
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:35 pm

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby Thorsten » Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:48 am

I would call that very active advertising since Sourgeforce is FGs download site,


Actually it's not - it's the repository site - http://www.flightgear.org is the download site - that points you to mirrors, of which SF is one - which you however never really would know. I kind of doubt the average user has an SF account - SF really is a developer's playground.

The new version alert feature seems to be something you activate in your SF account (at least I didn't get one...) - so it's hardly justified to call that active advertizing FG side...

May I nevertheless suggest a small news-subscription, where things like that is distributed in very brief terms.


There's the main website, the Wiki newsletters, the Facebook page, several regional Facebook pages, the Instragram page... another main problem is that pretty much everyone wonders why things are not announced on his favourite medium.

The truth is that Curt makes annoucements on the webpage, I summarize changes of policy and procedure there and write feature previews for main releases based on mailing list discussions (rather than my own opinion only) - and 'official' statements (like the stance on FGMembers) are published there - but neither Curt nor I have any chance (or inclination) to stop people from announcing things in this or any other forum - whether these things are based on a mailing list consensus or someone's personal opinion.

Neither do I think that opening yet another publication front (email newsletter) will help in that situation.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10986
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: 2019.1 release

Postby bugman » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:54 pm

Helipilot wrote in Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:33 am:That's not the hole truth seen from an amateur (like me) point of view. When You subscribe to Sourgeforce "new version alert", you are getting a link which automatic starts download 2019.x without any warning about stability. I would call that very active advertising since Sourgeforce is FGs download site, even if the advertisement is not directly from FG. It took me quite a while studying the forum (which i believe is not an average User (non expert, amateur - choose your preferred term) behavior), to discover, that 2019.x is not yet stable and that 2018.3 has been updated with respect to METAR, which I have been waiting for since I found out, that it was broken.


Thank you for the information. I have changed the default downloads on the SourceForge site to point to the 2018.3.2 version. I'll have to do that again when 2018.3.3 and 2018.3.4 are released and pushed to the file download site. Unfortunately we cannot automate this part of the release process.

Cheers,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

PreviousNext

Return to The FlightGear project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest