Re: [Flightgear-devel] Suggestion for a 737-family repository in FG GitLab

[Israel E. <sri...@gm...>]

Coding directly to the FGAddon repo sounds like the cleanest thing to do, but I can imagine why we wouldn't want to do that (permissions, forks, what-have-you). I think something like this has been done in some capacity? But I'm not certain. Regardless, it would be nice. Sort of. Maybe.
________________________________
From: Ludovic Brenta <lu...@lu...>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 9:40 AM
To: James Turner <ja...@fl...>
Cc: FG Developers List <fli...@li...>
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Suggestion for a 737-family repository in FG GitLab

James Turner <ja...@fl...> writes:
[...]
> So, in terms of reducing the number of forks, I’d *prefer*
> GitHub/GitLab/etc but you can do what you want since in the end …
> people can always fork it. We’re just very close to:
>
>        https://xkcd.com/927/
>
> … at that point :)

It is possible to reduce the number of forks to zero by working directly
in FGAddon (where the various 737s are, already).  With git-svn, people
used to git can get the best of both worlds: fgaddon serves as the
central repository and they can use git locally fi they want to.

> In this case, the FGAddon SVN repo becomes gradually less important
> (tending towards zero) as maintained aircraft gradually get their own
> repos. (We’d be left with the just the attic + unmaintained acft )

Wait, is that a strategy now?  Has that been discussed or agreed?  Or
are you trying to re-ignite the flamewar of 10 years ago that the
infamous "FGUSER" group started?

--
Ludovic Brenta.


_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Fli...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel