User talk:Red Leader

Welcome

Welcome to the wiki. I have been following your first edits, and it seems you know your way around a wiki. I find the {{fixed}} template pretty much spotless for example, though I had used the tick mark (I am biased though; it is my own work. ;-) ).

—Johan G (Talk | contribs) 18:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Johan! I've learnt quite a bit while looking inside wiki pages at the stuff you and other people have written. —Red Leader (Talk | contribs) 18:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

AI guided missiles (discussion moved to Talk:Scripted AI Missiles)

Hi Red Leader! I'm glad that you are working on the AI missile. Please, be aware that a lot of work has been done in terms of generalisation in Aircrat/m2000-5/Nasal/missile.nas ... Just before recoding fox2.nas(which is the original source of missile.nas), could you just take a little look :) Anyways there is still a lot to do :D.

—5H1N0B1 (Talk | contribs) 10:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Like I said previously - this is exactly why it makes sense to factor out generic functionality so that we can come up with an aircraft/use-case agnostic module that lives outside any particular aircraft folder. Restructuring your code should not be too difficult, and would invite others to help develop the code. Keeping such code separate makes absolute sense. Just look at the way Gijs' ND code meanwhile evolved - despite originally being aircraft specific: we are now seeing people contributing to it who are not even interested in the 747 or Boeing aircraft. Thus, I would suggest to prioritize refactoring the code accordingly, so that it can live outside the m2000-5 directory. This isn't rocket science, and you don't even need to use OO - but it will make your lives so much easier. And please let's use the article's talk page to coordinate this - obviously, the wiki article is working pretty well - given that RedLeader is now working on this.--Hooray (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Git link vs. Template:SVN link

I think it might be slightly less confusing to only link to Git repositories with {{Git link}} and have a {{SVN link}} template for the SVN links. ;-)

A beginning of {{SVN link}} has been made. Feel free to improve it, my time might be a bit limited.

—Johan G (Talk | contribs) 16:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically, the "right" thing would be introducing something like {{SCMLink|mode=git|host=gitorious|project=fg/fgdata|branch=master}} instead, which could handle different implementation (git/svn, mercurial etc)-we could also name it "RepoLink" to make it more obvious to people less familiar with SCMs.

—This unsigned comment was added by Hooray (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved a bit soon above. I was nearly done when you made your first save. Has to happen sometimes, I guess...

Generalizing would be a good idea I think, but do consider backward compatibility. I would suggest {{repo link}} for a name (short, no caps and easy to grasp its purpose from the name). Maybe a generalized template could be made and the older templates could be altered to the generalized template instead?

Also consider the amount of typing. If it is too much more easy to navigate to a page, copy the URL and edit the link label it might be too much typing and the template and hence a common format will not be used. At the other hand there could be copyable examples for each repo in the template documentation.

—Johan G (Talk | contribs) 17:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)