User:Callahanp: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 65: Line 65:
* Tormach 1100 CNC Mill
* Tormach 1100 CNC Mill


===== Pie in the sky? You decide...  =====
===== UFO? You decide...  =====


Flightgear of the Future.
Flightgear of the Future.
Line 73: Line 73:
I think a better question is how to go about undertaking any major restructuring of Flightgear's codebase to take advantage of modern tools and techniques.  And I think we already have an answer to that.
I think a better question is how to go about undertaking any major restructuring of Flightgear's codebase to take advantage of modern tools and techniques.  And I think we already have an answer to that.


In fact, we have an excellent example happening right now in the Spring of 2018. It's Edward's work on unit testing and the restructuring of the subsystem manager.  If you're interested in how big changes come about I'd suggest reading everything related to this effort rather closely and following the ongoing discussion over testing.  Look not just for the technical details, but for the way Edward limited the scope of his current activity and for the quality of the interactions between the interested parties.  I think its a model for anything major anyone wants to undertake in Flightgear.  In fact this kind of interaction is nothing new in the flightgear project.  Other examples abound. Everything from the adoption of OSG to QT has gone through a similar process.
In fact, there's an excellent example happening right now in the Spring of 2018. It's Edward's work on unit testing and the restructuring of the subsystem manager.  If you're interested in how big changes come about I'd suggest reading everything related to this effort rather closely and following the ongoing discussion over the need to refactor the way flightgear subsystem dependencies are handled.  Look not just for the technical details, but for the way Edward limited the scope of his current activity and for the quality of the interactions between the interested parties.  I think its a model for anything major anyone wants to undertake in Flightgear.  In fact this kind of interaction is nothing new in the flightgear project.  Other examples abound. Everything from the adoption of OSG to QT has gone through a similar process.


Those of us who want to be involved in ''big changes'' need to know this process well.  So read the mailing list entries in detail and notice the choices people are making and the reasons why.  The last thing we want is divisive discussion over direction or choices already made. Especially where the root of the discussion is a misunderstanding or refusal to recognize how the project actually works over a period of time.
Those of us who want to be involved in ''big changes'' need to know this process well.  So read the mailing list entries in detail and notice the choices people are making and the reasons why.  The last thing anyone wants is divisive discussion over direction or choices already made. Especially where the root of the discussion is a misunderstanding or refusal to recognize how the project actually works over a period of time.
So now here's my take on a big Flightgear code change - [[Multicore Processing and Clusters]].
 
So now here's my take on what would be a big Flightgear code change - [[Multicore Processing and Clusters]].  The changes in play today lay the groundwork for this.


References:
References:
980

edits

Navigation menu