Talk:Request for comments

Outdated !?

• some of these essays are fairly outdated now
• many of the issues discussed are no longer relevant
• Which ones are still relevant?
• Is there any page that gives a clear overview of the current state of development?
• Would such a page be helpful?

Response

I have been trying to remove outdated stuff or at least add "OutOfDate" templates. And I know that Gijs has also "promoted" some previous RFCs into dedicated articles meanwhile, because they are no longer just "RFCs" anymore fortunately. We have actually been planning to update things here. A "current state of development" page would definitely be useful. Obviously, it's hard to keep such a thing in sync ... But it would definitely be helpful. Ideally, such a page would be maintained by the people currently working on the corresponding projects. To get a good impression of ongoing efforts, I'd suggest to take a look at the "core development projects" category: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Category:Core_development_projects Obviously that can only list pages if other contributors publish their plans here and add the corresponding category tag to the article. That said, the RFC section was probably never intended to list ongoing projects but rather preserve ideas to deal with long-standing issues. I would say that the CDI, replay, scenery, PUI/GUI and "parallelizing FG" articles are pretty much outdated meanwhile, because there's meanwhile code in FlightGear to address the underlying issues. The DIS/multiplayer article will also be depreciated by the HLA work. Most of the other RFCs are still more less applicable/relevant actually, but not necessarily being worked on! For the latter, please use the "Core development projects" category. To learn more about recent development changes, I'd also suggest to take a look at the changelog for the upcoming release: http://wiki.flightgear.org/Changelog_3.0.0 --Hooray 17:44, 4 November 2012 (EST)