Talk:FlightGear Git on Windows
Merge with FlightGear and Git
Rsbrflyer, can you please explain your request for a merge with FlightGear and Git? I myself think that we can have multiple articles, specialised at the multiple OSes living next to eachother. I have created a Git on... template to navigate easily through those pages. The FlightGear and Git page can then act as a portal to those links and contain some generic information about Git and FlightGear's repository.
Cheers, Gijs 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The line of code for automating Getting the updates should have \win32 on the end.
- I don't know what line of code you're talking about, but feel free to edit the article if there's something wrong. It's a wiki after all ;-)
- Gijs 12:05, 5 November 2012 (EST)
It was this bit (fixed)
- If you want to automate this, you can run the installer in silent mode by passing the /S parameter, the /D parameter can be used to set the target directory into which he needs to install the binaries:
- e.g. fgfs_win32_vs2010_nightly_2.7.0.exe /S /D=C:\Flightgear\bin\win32
Macnab 12:10, 5 November 2012 (EST)
Regarding "Keeping your FlightGear up to date" and the Git pull command
Regarding the section "Keeping your FlightGear up to date", the guide seems to be missing or assuming a step. The guide instructs the user to cd to the \data directory, then issue the pull command. But I found that doing so in the \data directory causes Git to download the entire fgdata repository again and stuff the results under \data rather than update \data\fgdata. This can result in some frustration and a big waste of time and bandwidth.
The solution seems to be that the user must cd to \data\fgdata before issuing the pull command. This may be obvious to experienced Git users, but it is not obvious to newbies, especially if they're exactly following this guide to maintain fgdata.
The guide is an otherwise terrific resource and was very helpful.
--Buckaroo 07:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
RedLeader's edits (06/2015)
Thanks for doing this, but as you may have noticed, you have not only added new "hard-coded" git links to the article, but also missed a few old ones-so I guess, that it would be really better to introduce separate templates for these purposes, and get rid of any git.sf.net or gitorious.org URLs in general, what do you think ?--Hooray (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2015 (EDT)