On Monday 12 January 2009 15:29:43 gerard robin wrote: > On lundi 12 janvier 2009, Erik Hofman wrote: > > > > True, but this requires a base package update to work correctly. Which > > is better to delay a few days so the binary only bugfix release can get > > released. > > Ouups > sorry i thought that we could get profit, at least with FG 1.9, of a nice > and huge update of the c172 , which is today wrong and broken ( reffering > to the large talk on that mail list last year ).
I think this is a very good example of why regular releases are good. When the next release is already in sight, the pressure to push "huge updates" into maintenance releases lowers considerably. So, yes, it would be nice to have a much better c172 now, but it's still ok, to see it fly in a few months, perhaps even still better. And related: having release branches would be at least equally nice. As of now CVS head does not even represent the current development version anymore, because people are holding back patches not fit for a maintenance release. As branching in CVS is very expensive, we now have another reason to migrate to _any_ other VCS. So, is there anything I could do to help speeding up this migration? Stefan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It is the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://p.sf.net/sfu/Xq1LFB
_______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
