Board index FlightGear Support 3rd Party Repositories

FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 4:48 pm

Lydiot, you are correct with the above two posts. For a user, a collection/hoard that contains everything is always more attractive. Note though that there is no whining about FGMEMBERS as an idea. With the following slightly different design, there would be zero conflict:

bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 3:11 pm:It's pretty simple, why does Israel not set up FGMEMBERS to have different categories:

  • FGAddon mirror with no development.
  • 3rd party hangar mirrors - one category for each - and no development.
  • Zero-barrier development repositories as new aircraft or forks of the above.
  • Encouraging new aircraft developers to contact the original aircraft authors, and help them upstream (in FGAddon or the 3rd party hangar), to hopefully form a development team around the original author. The upstream changes will then flow into the mirrors, and down into any forks.

This is very simple to change with the current design of FGMEMBERS. It would take me less than 2 hours to do ;) With this, there will be the ability to fully automate mirror synchronisation via scripts (e.g. hourly cron jobs to very quickly mirror the changes). This goes against Israel's goal of replacing the core content infrastructure, but it does significantly improve the goals of content distribution and zero-barrier development. So why not do this? All points of conflict and resentment will then be gone.

Regards,
Edward

Edit: Here is a hint - set up FGMEMBERS aircraft to have submodules inside submodules. Then there could be a master FGMEMBERS-AIRCRAFT with the submodules FGMEMBERS-FGADDON, FGMEMBERS-PAF, FGMEMBERS-FGUK, FGMEMBERS-DEVEL, etc.


The objections are to the tactics used and the deliberate aims of minimising or completely cutting off contributions upstream to the core FlightGear infrastructure for the sole purpose of rendering it irrelevant, so that Israel can have his infrastructure as the de-facto FlightGear infrastructure. This is not something that would be of any concern for a user. But it has long term implications for the code and content developments in the FlightGear project, as it drains resources and creates deliberately constructed conflict. All of this simply comes down to how Israel very carefully designed FGMEMBERS to advance his goal of replacing the core infrastructure.

If you would like to understand the source of all FGMEMBERS conflict over the last two years, the following post by Israel highlights the only impasse to having FGMEMBERS peacefully coexist in the FlightGear development community:

See how Israel refuses to back down with the goal of having FGMEMBERS become the de-facto FlightGear content infrastructure? This is the key to everything, it is the sole impasse!

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 4:52 pm

So let me see if I get this straight:

- You represent the official FG which has a set of rules for collaboration. You want those rules to be followed by collaborators.

- Israel represents FGMembers which has a set of rules for collaboration. He wants those rules to be followed by collaborators.

- You don't want to give up any of your rules, you want him to give up his.

- He doesn't want to give up any of his rules, he wants you to give up yours.

But he's the one who doesn't want to collaborate? Did I get that right?
Lydiot
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 5:01 pm

https://github.com/FGMEMBERS/FGADDON_mirror

Is that a good enough start for you bugman...

Fgaddon link at fgmembers with no development.
"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 5:04 pm

He doesn't want to give up any of his rules, he wants you to give up yours.


I'm not totally sure that at present he doesn't care what FG collaboration rules are.... he might have in the past.
"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 curt » Wed May 18, 2016 5:12 pm

Anyone is free to create a fork of FlightGear and do what they want with it within the terms of the GPL. (In any project or any group, you will meet natural resistance to attempts to recruit developers away from mainline development to contribute exclusively to any fork.) So yes, if Israel or others want to pursue his own fork and not contribute back to the mainline, then by definition he isn't interested in collaborating with us. Using fgmembers style logic we can turn any argument any direction we want and argue for ever and suddenly we are questioning who won't collaborate with who <sigh>. However, the key distinction is that we were here first, by many many years, happily working on developing FlightGear. So by definition, it is new comers that would need to collaborate with the mainline project (if they choose to.) No one gets to create a hostile fork, recruit developers away from the mainline project, cultivate animosity for 2 years, and then claim we don't want to collaborate with them. That is just twisted.
Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics
University of Minnesota
curt
Administrator
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 5:17 pm

Lydiot, one needs to simply understand that the FGMEMBERS rules have been deliberately shaped, under different pretences, but with the explicit goal of eliminating the core FlightGear content infrastructure, so that FGMEMBERS becomes the de-facto infrastructure. Once this can be seen, and this ultimate goal understood, then the source of absolutely all conflict will be pretty obvious.

It will then be obvious that the only solution to the conflict that can be effectuated on the FlightGear side, is that the core and 3rd party hangars allow FGMEMBERS to become the de-facto infrastructure, and put the official and 3rd party repositories into retirement. There is nothing else that can be done from that side - the rules are irrelevant.

However on the FGMEMBERS side, the only solution is dropping this goal. That can be done using a simple meta restructuring using nested submodules for organisation and categorisation, using true repository mirroring, having zero-barrier developments in forks rather than in the mirrored originals, and pointing would-be developers to try to collaborate with the original aircraft author in FGAddon or 3rd party hangars.

This would then convert FGMEMBERS to be a 3rd party hangar, like all the others, but with the additional advantage, due to nested submodules, of being a full content distribution system for users, that does not jump on the toes of the established content developers. I hope you can see how such a change and Israel dropping his goal would cause a tectonic shift in FGMEMBERS' position in the FlightGear community.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1506
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 5:25 pm

curt wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 5:12 pm:Anyone is free to create a fork of FlightGear and do what they want with it within the terms of the GPL. (In any project or any group, you will meet natural resistance to attempts to recruit developers away from mainline development to contribute exclusively to any fork.) So yes, if Israel or others want to pursue his own fork and not contribute back to the mainline, then by definition he isn't interested in collaborating with us.
j

BUT HE DOES - JUST NOT ON YOUR TERMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You keep drawing the conclusion that not wanting to collaborate on your terms = not wanting to collaborate. Using THAT LOGIC OF YOURS the same can be said of you!

curt wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 5:12 pm: Using fgmembers style logic we can turn any argument any direction we want and argue for ever and suddenly we are questioning who won't collaborate with who <sigh>.


No dude, the above is all your logic.

curt wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 5:12 pm: However, the key distinction is that we were here first, by many many years, happily working on developing FlightGear. So by definition, it is new comers that would need to collaborate with the mainline project (if they choose to.) No one gets to create a hostile fork, recruit developers away from the mainline project, cultivate animosity for 2 years, and then claim we don't want to collaborate with them. That is just twisted.


I don't think you comprehend what the word "collaborate" means. I also don't think you really care about it.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 5:28 pm

bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 5:17 pm:Lydiot, one needs to simply understand that the FGMEMBERS rules have been deliberately shaped, under different pretences, but with the explicit goal of eliminating the core FlightGear content infrastructure, so that FGMEMBERS becomes the de-facto infrastructure.


bull-sht. Give me one piece of evidence of the goal being the elimination of your infrastructure. You're really reaching now.

bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 5:17 pm: Once this can be seen, and this ultimate goal understood, then the source of absolutely all conflict will be pretty obvious.


Or, conversely, once its seen how you're willingly misunderstanding something part of the problem can be seen.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby wlbragg » Wed May 18, 2016 5:59 pm

I give up!

Back to work for me. I appreciate all who have tried to bridge the gaps, but "you can't force anyone to reason".

After reading the fgmembers reply to bugman idea of how fgmembers could possibly restructure their infrastructure to better support core ideas, it is obvious there is no chance of anything but an unyielding demand to do it one way and one way only. It's not even about the idea anymore, it is the manner of the reaction to it.

Rather than even trying to debate the concepts put forth in bugman's ideas, which I saw as a potential fix for many of the negative aspects of the "all inclusive" fgmembers/terra", there instead was only belittlement, condemnation and the inability to even understand the concept based on their rebuttal.

The shoe on the other foot didn't come close to fitting my idea of inclusiveness, cooperation and sharing of ideas. Funny how the arguments and accusations of a dictatorial community can so quickly apply to the very community that made them and sought the "right to be heard" and the ability to influence change. How they can react to a suggestion in such a "knee-jerk" fashion after their affront on this community and it's ways of collaboration.

And just to be clear, this isn't because the the grip of the fantasized "green monster", or any of the other ridiculous historical references to mind control. This is in direct response to underlying negative attitudes, close mindedness and the inability to carry on a peaceful, constructive discussion.

There is no more of a chance that the fgmembers concepts are the only avenue forward than that of the many minds that have agreed on the current course of action. Neither to be unchangeable or the only path forward.
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby wlbragg » Wed May 18, 2016 6:03 pm

@Lydiot, you all are confusing a "group consensus" with an individuals choice.
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby DFaber » Wed May 18, 2016 6:05 pm

Lydiot wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 5:28 pm:
bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 5:17 pm:Lydiot, one needs to simply understand that the FGMEMBERS rules have been deliberately shaped, under different pretences, but with the explicit goal of eliminating the core FlightGear content infrastructure, so that FGMEMBERS becomes the de-facto infrastructure.


bull-sht. Give me one piece of evidence of the goal being the elimination of your infrastructure. You're really reaching now.

of course it is, has ever been and will always be. The sole intention of your posts is to keep this nasty and unnecessary thread on top of the "active topics" list as long as possible, pretending there is a whole new community developing at jabberwockys. I guess they have a good laugh over there, planning the next publicity thread.
Reading this is like following a sandbox conversation of a five Year old with his parents. Time to lock this thread and let it drift into oblivion.

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

German FlightGear Forum
http://forum.flightgear-de.net
DFaber
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:51 pm
Location: Aachen, Germany
Version: GIT
OS: Linux

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby PINTO » Wed May 18, 2016 6:13 pm

I know mods have been heavily involved in this, but can we get this thread locked please? It's pretty clear that it's been breaking rule #5 for like 10 pages.

https://forum.flightgear.org/rules.php
Actively developing the MiG-21bis (link to repo) (link to thread)

http://opredflag.com is an active flightgear dogfighting community (using a system that isn’t bombable)
User avatar
PINTO
 
Posts: 903
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:28 pm
Callsign: pinto
Version: 2016.3.0
OS: Win10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 6:16 pm

wlbragg wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 5:59 pm: it is obvious there is no chance of anything but an unyielding demand to do it one way and one way only.


I see no irony above.

Above however.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 6:17 pm

wlbragg wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 6:03 pm:@Lydiot, you all are confusing a "group consensus" with an individuals choice.


Explain. Because I don't think I'm confusing that at all.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Wed May 18, 2016 6:20 pm

DFaber wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 6:05 pm:
Lydiot wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 5:28 pm:bull-sht. Give me one piece of evidence of the goal being the elimination of your infrastructure. You're really reaching now.

of course it is, has ever been and will always be


Yeah, of course you're right. Because you say so. We don't need no evidence or anything, just your word for it. What else can you muster?

DFaber wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 6:05 pm:The sole intention of your posts is to keep this nasty and unnecessary thread on top of the "active topics" list as long as possible, pretending there is a whole new community developing at jabberwockys. [


Well how about this buddy: You don't go make asinine assertions about my intent and I won't reciprocate? Does that work for you?

Because what you wrote above is both stupid, presumptuous and annoying.

You're the one making it nasty.

You know nothing about me yet you have the balls to make the above comment.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to 3rd Party Repositories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest