Re: [Flightgear-devel] Volcanoes - an update

[Mihajlo T. <tom...@gm...>]

Thanks for the answer. I am aware that you are not obliged to answer. We
are only really obliged to die and everything else is non mandatory. It
wasn't the first time that you ignored my question and never answered some
of them even when I was trying to help so I was beginning to think that you
were deliberately ignoring me for some reason. Apparently I was wrong,so I
apologize for making that assumption. I didn't know you had so many
questions besides this one,so again I apologize.
That being said, I have no intention of hurrying you or making a wishlist.
My question was not a feature request. I don't even fly near the areas with
volcanoes,though it is a nice addition regardless. My question was like you
said out of curiosity. Hope this clears things up.
Regards,
Mihajlo

2017-09-24 19:15 GMT+02:00 Thorsten Renk <tho...@sc...>:

>
> It would be nice if you answered the question instead of being ignored for
>> no apparent reason.
>>
>
>
> *taking a deep breath*
>
> Please forgive me the relative amount of bluntness in the following, but:
> May I remind you that (like everyone else) I do FG as a hobby, that I have
> real-world stuff to do just as well, and that I absolutely don't see myself
> under an obligation to answer every question within less than 24 hours (or
> even at all).
>
> So please take a moment to re-examine the attitude that brings you to
> write something like the above. Thanks.
>
> But why don't I 'just' take the few minutes to answer?
>
> Because I'm seeing a good dozen FG-related queries every day (questions to
> me via forum, via list, via PM, via email in addition to questions in forum
> and list to which I know the answer but others likely do not,...) and if I
> take 'just' 10 minutes to deal with every one, it's two hours of my day.
>
> So I simply just don't react to everything - I priorize.
>
> You're asking to satisfy your own curiosity, Chris is an
> aircraft-maintainer and early-adopter who might be the first to implement
> something like this, so it's not mere curiosity, there's potentially
> tangible benefits for FG here - which is one reason I deal with his
> question first.
>
> The other reason you might have guessed before asking. I'm the creator and
> maintainer of ALS, how likely is it that I have *not* thought about how to
> interface it with other development I'm doing? So the fact that I don't
> mention it in the plan is unlikely to be because I never think of ALS. It
> must be due to some other reason - and the reason is that I'm thinking
> about it and haven't made up my mind.
>
> I will come to an answer in my own time and prefer not to be hurried.
>
> There's a second thing that I do not really like, and that's people
> creating their feature wishlist when I sketch a development plan (usually
> in the guise of 'wouldn't it be a great idea if we could also?' or 'then we
> could also have' or similar ideas). I know thousands of things that would
> be nice to have, and lots of which I would be technically able to do - but
> my time is limited. When I write a proposal to the devel list, it's based
> on what I see myself actually doing, and I send it because I want some
> feedback from other developers of whether it interferes with their plans,
> or whether I should re-structure things (as has in fact happened in the
> volcano case). What I don't really need at this point is an added feature
> wishlist without the manpower to back it up.
>
> Anyway - hope that explains my position, again, please forgive the
> bluntness.
>
>
> * Thorsten
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Fli...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>