As a new person to flightgear, but an OSS participant for the last decade and a half, and a development manager by trade I would strongly suggest the 1.9 stream numbering. The rationale for this is as follows.
1) Realistically there are bugs that exist, having a 1.8 or 1.9 is industry practice for saying 'we know we aren't to what we want for a major, but it adds value for us to get this out'. 2) Flightgear between 1.0 and now has gone from a part flightsim/part opengl development project to a part flightsim/part visualization toolkit. With OSG, most of the OpenGL is now gone, replaced with near pure visualitation toolkit. This considerably reduces the barriers for developers to start assisting since they can now go effectively shopping with OSG and then the 'coding' is bringing an OSG feature into flightgear. Actively pushing this should help flightgear gather OSG capable developers for flightgear 2.0 3) Actively pushing flightgear as a production user of OSG and OSG as the underpinning for flightgear should provide for useful synergy for allowing OSG core developers experiment with flightgear to see their ideas in actual use (vs small theoretical examples). Again the gap between 1.9 and 2.0 allows the experiments to occur. It does mean the flightgear people need to be open to experimentation by people who fundamentally don't necessarily show interest in flightgear itself. Just by 2 cents :) Regards... Matthew On 10/4/08, Stuart Buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- On Sat, 4/10/08, Melchior FRANZ wrote: >> * Durk Talsma -- Saturday 04 October 2008: >> > Given that we have an OSG branch that has undergone >> significant >> > development this year, and a PLIB branch, with little or no >> > development, I would strongly urge that the main release would >> > be OSG based. >> >> I agree. The PLIB branch was only kept alive for a short time >> after the 1.0 release, just for the case that we missed some >> really bad bugs and needed to make a bugfix release. Making >> another release from that would be rather pointless, and not >> help to convince people that fgfs is not "dead". >> Rather the opposite. > > I think a release is a great idea. Thanks in advance for all the work you > will be doing! > > I'll second Melchior's comments on PLIB vs. OSG - even with the known > deficiencies, an OSG release would be by far the best. > >> > PLIB based maintenance release: 1.0.1 >> > OSG based main release: 1.1.0 (or 1.2.0) >> >> I like the idea of an 1.9 release from the OSG branch. This >> makes clear that it's one step before a major release 2.0, >> and that there were fundamental changes (additions and also >> temporary losses). We could easily explain why clouds/shadows >> are missing there, and it might attract new developers who >> are interested and knowledgable in OSG. > > I think this numbering scheme makes sense. > > -Stuart > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge > Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great > prizes > Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world > http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ > _______________________________________________ > Flightgear-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel > -- Sent from my mobile device ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
