Talk:FGAddon: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 52: Line 52:


You are free to review/edit and revert the corresponding additions, like I said, they were not intended to stay "as is". However, the history section is currently incomplete anyway, and that "fgmembers" ended up in it, is merely because I took '''your''' quote ;-) The current forum debate illustrates that it does make sense to mention that we've had other attempts, and that they failed. Anyway, feel free to revert. I just think that the history section could have the potential to explain things that people ask about on the forum - even without mentioning fgmembers specifically.--[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 09:38, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
You are free to review/edit and revert the corresponding additions, like I said, they were not intended to stay "as is". However, the history section is currently incomplete anyway, and that "fgmembers" ended up in it, is merely because I took '''your''' quote ;-) The current forum debate illustrates that it does make sense to mention that we've had other attempts, and that they failed. Anyway, feel free to revert. I just think that the history section could have the potential to explain things that people ask about on the forum - even without mentioning fgmembers specifically.--[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 09:38, 14 May 2016 (EDT)
: It's already all there.  For example:
:* '''Original:''' A first splitting attempt was organised by Gijs de Rooy and announced on October 18, 2011[9]. Each aircraft was placed in its own Git repository and all aircraft linked back to fgdata using a Git submodule approach. However this attempt failed and was abandoned. From this date until the end of 2014, the design of the fgdata split was discussed on the development mailing list and summarised in the FlightGear Git: splitting fgdata wiki article.  In the planning stages, the repositories were known as fgdata-old splitting into FGData (a.k.a. fgdata-new) and FGAddon (a.k.a. flightgear-aircraft and fgaircraft). After half a decade of planning, it was decided that the best solution for FlightGear aircraft development would be a single centralized Subversion repository. This would facilitate community management and maintenance of the aircraft while at the same time providing modularity and smaller downloads and smaller local repository sizes.
:* '''New addition:''' Back in Oct 2011, the group decided to go with the git submodule approach, as lead by Gijs. However Gijs found a number of fatal issues with the approach, the exact same issues are actually currently found in the FGMEMBERS aircraft repositories, and there were enough voices on the list to stop with the git submodules and to search for an alternative, that ended up being SVN. Cedric was obviously not happy after spending so much effort on creating the full git submodule system with one repository per aircraft[7] - a system identical to the FGMEMBERS aircraft repositories.[8]
: Cedric is the first name in reference 9, so apart from the mention of FGMEMBERS, the two pieces of text say exactly the same thing.  This is not coincidence ;)  A duplication is confusing, and the second piece of text is just one of many regurgitations of the history that FGMEMBERS proponents repetitively and incessantly ask for (to somehow try to [https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=29559&start=15#p284835 slaughter FGAddon]).  For the second addition:
:* The short summary is that we already were maintaining a well established presence on sourceforge. So after quite a bit of discussion, we decided to consolidate there. In addition, we had a perpetual complaint that the fgdata git repository was far too big for most people to initially download (1Gb+). Thus we split off most of the aircraft (expecting unbounded future growth potential) into an svn repository called fgaddon. Sourceforge supports both git and svn repositories. This puts a dependency on a central svn server for our fgaddon aircraft repository, but lightens the weight for anyone wanting to checkout a copy of everything (you don't need a copy of the entire development history, and a copy of every version ever created of every aircraft if you just want to have the latest versions.) Plus svn allows checking out subtrees (without needing the whole repository) so this can also serve as a potential JIT single aircraft service provider. Of course there are always multiple ways to solve every problem and of course every engineering decision has trade offs. Github is a nice provider, no doubt.[10]
: This too is repetitive and long.  For example sentence 1 is covered by "Other parts of the FlightGear infrastructure were already hosted by SourceForge...".  Sentence 3 is the early text "...the fgdata repository mushroomed...".  The lightening the weight might be useful, but as a few words at the point where the split is first mentioned.  I'll revert, but see if there are a few small things that can be added without this having to look like an attempt to justify the right for FGAddon to exist.  And I'll try to keep this light, as needed for a 20 year summary of all the FlightGear asset history.
: [[User:Bugman|Bugman]] ([[User talk:Bugman|talk]]) 11:32, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

Navigation menu