* Mathias Fröhlich -- Thursday 27 July 2006 18:15: > I believe that you miss the point.
That may be ... > The point is that we can, without loosing features, with a sensible design, > prepare getting rid of ssg. As allmost allways, building sensible structures > is a win even if no switch will happen. Sure. As I said: I'm still in favor of abstracting where possible, and of switching to OSG (when it has been officially decided!). I just won't drop raw gl-* commands when there is no replacement in ssg. This would be at least a temporary loss that is not justified. You said you have a lot of OSG transition work on your HD already, which is fine. This is a *hard* piece of work, and we will all profit from it. BUT: I don't disassemble fgfs in *CVS* now, when the propsed, better replacement is on *your HD* only. You can get hit by a lightning or run over by the proverbial bus, and all we have is a broken fgfs in *CVS*, with none of your improvements available. > Just blocking that is not a good idea. I'm not blocking a good idea. I'm demanding a correct handling of the whole matter. (A) discussion, (B) decision, (C) branching, (D) entering the shiny world of osg. > ... did you ever look at the sceens of csp.sf.net? occasionally, yes. I also have osg/head here and love to look at the stunning examples. And *still* I won't cripple the HUD code (even more) because of that. :-P m. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
