Release plan: Difference between revisions

Release plan (view source)

Revision as of 20:54, 23 January 2013

204 bytes added , 23 January 2013

m

→‎2.10

Hooray

Administrators

20,741

edits

@@ Line 199: / Line 199: @@
 * for the web-based release announcement, it would be helpful to have screen shots or even youtube videos to demonstrate new features
 * GLSL shaders and effects should be treated like core code, and should be tested on different platforms before being enabled by default (i.e. signed-off by people using NVIDIA, ATI/AMD, Intel) [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg39120.html]
-* New/updated Nasal scripts contributed to the base package should be checked to properly support important features like simulator reset, this also applies to Nasal scripts used by aircraft, Nasal scripts that fail these criteria, end up breaking existing features! [https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=956]
+* New/updated Nasal scripts contributed to the base package should be checked to properly support important features like simulator reset, this also applies to Nasal scripts used by aircraft, Nasal scripts that fail these criteria, end up breaking existing features! [https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=956] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]])
 * there were a number of navcache/SQLite related issues reported via the issue tracker and the forum/devel list [https://code.google.com/p/flightgear-bugs/issues/detail?id=894]
 * a little irritation/frustration was caused due to the conflicting review statements concerning the new radio propagation code [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38905.html] [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38825.html] [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg33692.html] - some of this boiled down to coding style related issues, highlighting the fact that different core developers have different "coding styles" and requirements when reviewing merge requests, because we still lack an official "FlightGear coding style guide" [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38958.html]
@@ Line 213: / Line 213: @@
 * According to the issue tracker there were 3-5 different contributors who provided C++ patches that didn't end up reviewed/merged, which caused some irritation.
 * it may make sense to also allow artwork contributors to contribute new splash screen images for use in the upcoming release. The screen shot contest should provide plenty of options [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795].
-* {{Thumbs up}} regarding aircraft included in the release: "I must stress usefulness of the Autostart feature, present in most aircraft not running at startup. It keeps frustration away from those who just want to enjoy the flight . (Please note that I actually agree with aircraft being shut down at startup, as long as autostart is present, or the starting procedure is trivially doable by just trying what you see in the cockpit.) " [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18240&p=175117#p175117]
+* {{Thumbs up}} regarding aircraft included in the release: "I must stress usefulness of the Autostart feature, present in most aircraft not running at startup. It keeps frustration away from those who just want to enjoy the flight . (Please note that I actually agree with aircraft being shut down at startup, as long as autostart is present, or the starting procedure is trivially doable by just trying what you see in the cockpit.) " [http://flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18240&p=175117#p175117] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]])
-* {{Thumbs up}} also, it would apparently make sense to provide tutorials for the default aircraft: "At first startup, I noticed the "Need help? use help->tutorials" message, and because I had no idea how to start up the plane (it would be just plain try and fail, than try something else), I did just that and started some basic tutorials. I wouldn't say going through the tutorials was frustrating, but they were quite boring and I was eager to get in the air as soon as possible." [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795]
+* {{Thumbs up}} also, it would apparently make sense to provide tutorials for the default aircraft: "At first startup, I noticed the "Need help? use help->tutorials" message, and because I had no idea how to start up the plane (it would be just plain try and fail, than try something else), I did just that and started some basic tutorials. I wouldn't say going through the tutorials was frustrating, but they were quite boring and I was eager to get in the air as soon as possible." [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]])
 * Language files should be synced between English and other languages, so translators can work on them before the release ;-)
 * "I discovered however, that there can be some problems on Linux about the planes (eg. some versions of the L39 Albatros undergoing several improvements lately). The problems can be caused by Linux being case sensitive about file paths (Windows is not), and I suspect, more models could suffer from some developers not knowing that. It's easy to fix if you know about the problem, but it would better be done on the developer side, as you never know if the smoke is just not implemented or missing due to this. Not to mention how lengthy it would be to go through more aircraft..." [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795]
 * I also vote for hosting a non-GPL hangar on the FG site, and tighter coordination with the aircraft developers (I think they should be asked to actively propose their models to the hangar once it is created, of course there could be link to their site/hangar). It would help nice models to be more easily found, an more people could enjoy them. And that's why people spend time creating them, right? [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795]
 * {{Thumbs down}} A little downside is how the FGcom is done as a standalone program just cooperating with FG itself. It took me some fiddling with the settings for about two hours to get it working, but again installation was simply done from repos (FGcom and than FGcomGui as well). [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] (this is planned [http://www.mail-archive.com/flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg38057.html])
-* {{Thumbs down}} Most likely because of the Intel graphics, I suffered for a long time from a problem with aircraft models (and some ground textures too) being black or missing some parts (see my post in an older thread complaining about similar problem). I solved it by adding a command line option turning off texture compression. [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795]
+* {{Thumbs down}} Most likely because of the Intel graphics, I suffered for a long time from a problem with aircraft models (and some ground textures too) being black or missing some parts (see my post in an older thread complaining about similar problem). I solved it by adding a command line option turning off texture compression. [http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=16795] (also see [[Release:Aircraft Selection Criteria]])
 ==== 2.8 ====