Board index FlightGear Support 3rd Party Repositories

FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 12:10 pm

Bomber wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 10:26 am:
bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 9:23 am: Israel has the simple choice - is this "FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure" or "FGMEMBERS infrastructure and FlightGear infrastructure"? Any demands for changes to the FlightGear infrastructure is considered unreasonable - it is not up to the FlightGear community to change to accommodate FGMEMBERS, but rather the reverse. Any such demands will clearly show that the first option has been chosen, and that I do not need to change the title of this thread.

What a crock... you titled the thread, frankly I think the thread title is an attempt at trolling.

Now requesting that things be made easier to transfer from FGmembers to FGaddon isn't in any way a hostile demand... but is in fact a means by which both sets of developers can swap work...

Yes a change is required....

Interesting that you bring this old argument back up - the offer by Israel to automatically synchronise the content of FGMEMBERS with FGAddon, an offer that was obviously designed to fail and be used as a victim card. The reasons that this offer was not accepted has been repeated ad nauseam. But I'll repeat it here for the benefit of anyone who missed it:

  1. This was Israel's first and last attempt at asking for FGAddon commit access, coming straight after his persistent and aggressive attacks to have FGAddon replaced with FGMEMBERS.
  2. Because of the repository hook scripts and other settings, this does not merely require ordinary commit access. It would require full admin rights, which would then have to be granted for all of the FlightGear infrastructure on SourceForge. The number of core developers with such access can be counted on one hand. Such super-admin access is not given out lightly.
  3. Automated synchronisation is not possible. Because of conflicts, manual merging will be required. Scripted synchronisation is impossible.
  4. The FlightGear policy is to contact the original author first - we deliberately do not jump on peoples toes! Automated synchronisation destroys this.
  5. If the original author is not contactable, we have a mentor system. This allows new contributors to learn about etiquette, the important licensing issues, and working in a team. Automated synchronisation removes this.
  6. The previous two points mean that we have easy to jump over barriers of entry, ensuring quality, conflict avoidance, and avoiding legal issues with illegal content entering the repository. Automated synchronisation eliminates this.
  7. We do not hoard and we do not want all content to be in FGAddon. Aircraft authors themselves make this choice! We instead encourage 3rd party developments and diversity in the FlightGear ecosystem.
Considering that both the FlightGear administrators and Israel were well aware of all of these points (it would be impossible not to), the polite refusal of Israel's offer was pretty obvious.

Anyway, this is just a distraction from the real question - why does Israel cling to the goal of replacing the FlightGear content infrastructure and instead not choose for peaceful coexistence? The FGMEMBERS repositories could easily be redesigned for this purpose. Though I suppose that Israel's goal and your desire to split the FlightGear community align quite well.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 1:04 pm

The annoying part of the constant FGMEMBERS recruiting of people on this official forum,


But you don't find other 3rd party repositories annoying ?

And to think about it you can't object to me using Fgmembers repository as up until they came along no one here of the core development team was interested in committing any of my work.

As far as the core team are concerned I'm a nucence... a person that simply likes to argue and that has a too much noise to signal ratio.

I'm using it as a 3rd party repository for my own stuff just like if I was a member of fguk.... and I can say come get my stuff and debate with me over on Fgmembers just like those from fguk do with their forum.

I've broken no rules.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 1:10 pm

The word annoying was a link to Lydiot's usage of the word.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 1:41 pm

Bomber wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 1:04 pm:And to think about it you can't object to me using Fgmembers repository as up until they came along no one here of the core development team was interested in committing any of my work.


For your work to be committed into the core infrastructure, that is totally 100% up to you to take the initiative. This requires signing up to the flightgear-devel mailing list and asking.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 2:06 pm

All I wanted was any plane or fdm upgrade I'd done to be made available to the community....

Nothing to do with debating any core code or infrastructure.

I've been here long enough, made enough noise, posted in enough topics..... just didn't kiss enough booty.

And now I don't have to...
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 2:14 pm

Taking initiative by emailing the flightgear-devel mailing list and kissing booty are not the same thing. If you want your work in the core infrastructure, assuming there are no conflicts with the original author, by taking the initiative and pushing for it, you'll have your work committed. You'll probably get feedback on the implementation, at least more than here, especially with the FDM (the JSBSim author, Jon Berndt, is signed up for the devel list and sometimes answers questions there).

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 2:18 pm

Have you ever considered shutting the development forum over here down. As the majority of developers are on the mailing list it's not going to make a lot of difference and would put a stop to the bickering over here.

It's having development discussed in two places that I'm against... you understand the splitting of the development community.

Something you accuse Fgmembers of doing but have done a good job of it yourselves.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 2:19 pm

If i want to talk to Jon I use the jsbsim mailing list....

They don't have a split community.... it's just all in one place.

And anyway to update an fdm on a plane I don't need Jon's involvement. ..

No wonder you guys are so busy if you feel you have to micromanage everything.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 2:25 pm

How would you word the text at the top of the development forum to be clearer? The current text is:

Forum rules
Core development is discussed on the official FlightGear-Devel development mailing list.

Bugs can be reported in the bug tracker.


Not all development happens under one roof. There is no need to force that. Take the default C172P aircraft for example, they communicate among each other via their own infrastructure.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby wkitty42 » Wed May 18, 2016 2:34 pm

Bomber wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 10:37 am:This forum has... Total members 6286

how many of those post daily?
how many of those post weekly?
how many of those post monthly?
how many of those are spammers that have snuck in and not been caught yet?

Bomber wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 10:37 am:What world do you live in...

some would say the same about your world, too ;)
"You get more air close to the ground," said Angalo. "I read that in a book. You get lots of air low down, and not much when you go up."
"Why not?" said Gurder.
"Dunno. It's frightened of heights, I guess."
User avatar
wkitty42
 
Posts: 4681
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:46 pm
Location: central NC, USA
Callsign: wk42
Version: git next
OS: Kubuntu 14.04.5

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 2:37 pm

It clearly says core development is discussed on the mailing list...

A planes fdm, it's texture or maybe 3d model and animation.xml file isn't core...

Discussionso relating to such or promoting the discussions on the mailing list is over reaching the mailing lists remit....

core development is discussed on the mailing list...

If you don't want fdm or other non core stuff discussed on the forum but rather the mailing list then close the development forum .... it's an easy solution.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Thorsten » Wed May 18, 2016 2:39 pm

And to think about it you can't object to me using Fgmembers repository as up until they came along no one here of the core development team was interested in committing any of my work.

As far as the core team are concerned I'm a nucence... a person that simply likes to argue and that has a too much noise to signal ratio.


Bomber, you always talk about respect.

We've never agreed much, and though you probably didn't realize it, I've nevertheless always respected your FDM work (and actually said this a few times in this forum). I've also respected you as someone who has strong opinions, but is fundamentally above playing psycho-games etc,

To my knowledge, you've never expressed before that you would like to see your work committed. You initially did T4T, and (I may be wrong here) that was licensed differently. I learned first during a rather heated debate that you had been interested in seeing your work in FG, and the first thing I did is asking you whether you want me to commit on your behalf. I've been interested in your work long before and have actually praised it,

Also, most of the core developers aren't likely to even know you, as they are on the mailing list, where you are not. So I don't think they have an opinion about you either way.

I'm sorry, but casting that into the frame you do that nobody was interested in your work prior to FGMembers is simply not honest. This isn't how it was, and by doing so you've just lost the respect I've held for you. I've thought better of you than to go down that road - for all the differences we had, this I had not expected.

If you don't want FG to have your work because there've been differences - fine. But then stand by your decision and don't do these games.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 9803
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 2:45 pm

We all live in the same world ;) There are also quite an impressive number of people signed up for the mailing list - but what is more important is the percentage of people able to answer complex technical questions is orders of magnitude greater on the list. Anyway, core development does not imply source code development. Core development means anything involving the core infrastructure - code and content. Maybe that should be added to the text to clarify it. FDM discussions, textures, 3D models, animations, etc. are discussed on the mailing list, for example:

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 2:48 pm

If that's what you want to do go for it...

But why on earth would I want to read an email like this...

I have added the request header.

The socket timeouts make me puzzled. The stackdump suggests that these
timeouts happen _after_ the http header has been received and the reception
of the message body fails.
This should not happen unless the connection gets interrupted in the middle
of a http request/response sequence (pulled plug, dsl going down or so), at
least it should be extremly rare.
Do you have any firewall that might play a role?

For the skipped directories: do you run with --quick? That would explain
why it does skip directories that have a valid .dirindex (this is by
intention)
Unless you have a complete error-free run of terrasync.py, don't use
--quick.

Regards
Torsten

<wkitty42@...> schrieb am Mi., 18. Mai 2016 um 14:09 Uhr

> On 05/18/2016 07:05 AM, Torsten Dreyer wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have just pushed an improved version of terrasync.py.
> > This should be much faster than before as it uses the same connection
> for many
> > http requests.
>
> this should be a GoodThing<tm>...
>
> > It also checks the .dirindex'es local hash and only downloads the file
> if it has
> > changed.
>
> i'm not sure about this... it seems to stop at the top level even if the
> lower
> levels are not completed or even have .dirindex file... see below where it
> has
> been run again a full SVN that contains no .dirindex or .dirindex.tmp
> files...
>
> > It should handle connection aborts and restarts much more graceful.
>
> we must be missing something, then... i've had several of these socket
> timeouts
> and they seem to be really quick when they happen and not taking seconds or
> minutes of nothing before they trigger... on restarts, it skips the last
> one
> done... in the below, Airports is being worked on when the socket timeout
> occurs... the restart skips all the rest of Airports and moves on to
> Models...
> to get it to go back and do them properly, i have to delete .dirindex
> files :(
>
> please also note the PS at the bottom of this post...
>
>
> myuser@...:~$ ~/myflightgear/pyupdateTSScenery
>
> ********** Program start at 20160518_074237EDT **********
> processing
> processing //Airports
> processing /Airports/M
> processing /Airports/M/M
> processing /Airports/M/M/M
> processing /Airports/M/M/V
> [...]
> processing /Airports/L/F/E
> processing /Airports/L/F/Q
> processing /Airports/L/F/K
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 249, in <module>
> terraSync.start()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 161, in start
> self.updateDirectory("", "", None )
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 189, in
> updateDirectory
> self.httpGetter.get(request)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 62, in get
> httpGetCallback.callback()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 124, in callback
> self.mycallback(self)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 192, in
> handleDirindexRequest
> self.handleDirindexFile(dirindexRequest.dst)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 207, in
> handleDirindexFile
> self.updateDirectory( "/" + dirIndex.getPath() + "/" + d,
> join(dirIndex.getPath(),d), h )
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 189, in
> updateDirectory
> self.httpGetter.get(request)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 62, in get
> httpGetCallback.callback()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 124, in callback
> self.mycallback(self)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 192, in
> handleDirindexRequest
> self.handleDirindexFile(dirindexRequest.dst)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 207, in
> handleDirindexFile
> self.updateDirectory( "/" + dirIndex.getPath() + "/" + d,
> join(dirIndex.getPath(),d), h )
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 189, in
> updateDirectory
> self.httpGetter.get(request)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 62, in get
> httpGetCallback.callback()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 124, in callback
> self.mycallback(self)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 192, in
> handleDirindexRequest
> self.handleDirindexFile(dirindexRequest.dst)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 207, in
> handleDirindexFile
> self.updateDirectory( "/" + dirIndex.getPath() + "/" + d,
> join(dirIndex.getPath(),d), h )
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 189, in
> updateDirectory
> self.httpGetter.get(request)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 62, in get
> httpGetCallback.callback()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 124, in callback
> self.mycallback(self)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 192, in
> handleDirindexRequest
> self.handleDirindexFile(dirindexRequest.dst)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 207, in
> handleDirindexFile
> self.updateDirectory( "/" + dirIndex.getPath() + "/" + d,
> join(dirIndex.getPath(),d), h )
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 189, in
> updateDirectory
> self.httpGetter.get(request)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 62, in get
> httpGetCallback.callback()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 121, in callback
> f.write(self.result.read())
> File "/usr/lib/python3.4/http/client.py", line 512, in read
> s = self._safe_read(self.length)
> File "/usr/lib/python3.4/http/client.py", line 662, in _safe_read
> chunk = self.fp.read(min(amt, MAXAMOUNT))
> File "/usr/lib/python3.4/socket.py", line 374, in readinto
> return self._sock.recv_into(b)
> socket.timeout: timed out
> RSLTCODE=1
> Removing left over .dirindex.tmp files...
> Process terminates.
> ********** Program stop at 20160518_074520EDT **********
> ********** Total elapsed time is 0h 2m 43s **********
>
>
> myuser@...:~$ ~/myflightgear/pyupdateTSScenery
>
> ********** Program start at 20160518_075048EDT **********
> processing
> processing //Airports
> processing //Models
> processing /Models/Airport
> processing /Models/Airport/Jetway
> processing /Models/Airport/Jetway/Airlines
> processing /Models/Airport/Vehicle
> processing /Models/Airport/Pushback
> processing /Models/Transport
> processing /Models/Effects
> processing /Models/Residential
> processing /Models/Sport
> processing /Models/Agriculture
> processing /Models/Power
> processing /Models/Aircraft
> processing /Models/Misc
> processing /Models/Boundaries
> processing /Models/Industrial
> processing /Models/Maritime
> processing /Models/Maritime/Misc
> processing /Models/Maritime/Civilian
> downloading /Models/Maritime/Civilian/LargeFerry.ac
> processing /Models/Maritime/Military
> processing /Models/Military
> processing /Models/Communications
> processing /Models/Fauna
> processing /Models/Commercial
> processing /Models/StreetFurniture
> processing /Models/Trees
> processing //Objects
> processing /Objects/e130n70
> processing /Objects/e130n70/e135n70
> processing /Objects/e130n70/e136n71
> [...]
> processing /Objects/w090n40/w081n44
> processing /Objects/w090n40/w085n43
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 249, in <module>
> terraSync.start()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 161, in start
> self.updateDirectory("", "", None )
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 189, in
> updateDirectory
> self.httpGetter.get(request)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 62, in get
> httpGetCallback.callback()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 124, in callback
> self.mycallback(self)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 192, in
> handleDirindexRequest
> self.handleDirindexFile(dirindexRequest.dst)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 207, in
> handleDirindexFile
> self.updateDirectory( "/" + dirIndex.getPath() + "/" + d,
> join(dirIndex.getPath(),d), h )
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 189, in
> updateDirectory
> self.httpGetter.get(request)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 62, in get
> httpGetCallback.callback()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 124, in callback
> self.mycallback(self)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 192, in
> handleDirindexRequest
> self.handleDirindexFile(dirindexRequest.dst)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 207, in
> handleDirindexFile
> self.updateDirectory( "/" + dirIndex.getPath() + "/" + d,
> join(dirIndex.getPath(),d), h )
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 189, in
> updateDirectory
> self.httpGetter.get(request)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 62, in get
> httpGetCallback.callback()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 124, in callback
> self.mycallback(self)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 192, in
> handleDirindexRequest
> self.handleDirindexFile(dirindexRequest.dst)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 207, in
> handleDirindexFile
> self.updateDirectory( "/" + dirIndex.getPath() + "/" + d,
> join(dirIndex.getPath(),d), h )
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 189, in
> updateDirectory
> self.httpGetter.get(request)
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 62, in get
> httpGetCallback.callback()
> File "/home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py", line 121, in callback
> f.write(self.result.read())
> File "/usr/lib/python3.4/http/client.py", line 512, in read
> s = self._safe_read(self.length)
> File "/usr/lib/python3.4/http/client.py", line 662, in _safe_read
> chunk = self.fp.read(min(amt, MAXAMOUNT))
> File "/usr/lib/python3.4/socket.py", line 374, in readinto
> return self._sock.recv_into(b)
> socket.timeout: timed out
> RSLTCODE=1
> Removing left over .dirindex.tmp files...
> Process terminates.
> ********** Program stop at 20160518_075328EDT **********
> ********** Total elapsed time is 0h 2m 40s **********
>
>
>
>
> PS: i had to add (again) the user agent to the headers to get the intrusion
> detection system to stop crying about the python user agent ;)
>
> $ diff -u ~/flightgear-dev/next/flightgear/scripts/python/terrasync.py
> ~/myflightgear/terrasync.py
> --- /home/myuser/flightgear-dev/next/flightgear/scripts/python/terrasync.py
> 2016-05-18 07:19:07.563711948 -0400
> +++ /home/myuser/myflightgear/terrasync.py 2016-05-18
> 07:28:47.171726946 -0400
> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
> self.requests = []
> self.pendingRequests = []
> self.httpConnection =
> HTTPConnection(self.parsedBaseUrl.netloc,80, True)
> - self.httpRequestHeaders = headers =
>
> {'Host':self.parsedBaseUrl.netloc,'Content-Length':0,'Connection':'Keep-Alive'}
> + self.httpRequestHeaders = headers =
>
> {'Host':self.parsedBaseUrl.netloc,'Content-Length':0,'Connection':'Keep-Alive','User-Agent':'FlightGear
> Terrasyncer v2016.3.0'}
>
> def get(self, httpGetCallback):
>
>
>
> --
> NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
> *Please keep mailing list traffic on the list* unless
> private contact is specifically requested and granted.
>
>
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1935
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 2:51 pm

Simply use email filters to pack all the messages into a folder, skipping the inbox. Then selectively read what you wish to based on the subject line. Like this forum, it is best not to read everything.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

PreviousNext

Return to 3rd Party Repositories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest