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

[Josh D. <jos...@ou...>]

Coding directly into FGAddon is not a good idea and hurts user experience. FGAddon should contain stable planes for end users.

--
Josh Davidson
________________________________
From: Israel Emmanuel <sri...@gm...>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 12:18:41 PM
To: fli...@li... <fli...@li...>
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Suggestion for a 737-family repository in FG GitLab

Well, I am all for using Git on FGAddon as opposed to Subversion, so I think that's a win. What needs to happen for this to become real? I didn't really understand James' message down below.
________________________________
From: Nia via Flightgear-devel <fli...@li...>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 10:07 AM
To: fli...@li... <fli...@li...>
Cc: Nia <fl...@sy...>
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Suggestion for a 737-family repository in FG GitLab

On 2025-12-01 17:56, Israel Emmanuel wrote:
> 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.

Well that is kinda the core idea behind this... coding in a "new"
FGAddon...
A collection of repositories... since it is new, and each repo only
houses one aircraft, we could use git too, each aircraft can have its
own issues and pull requests, but at the same time, they are grouped
together that they form something similar to what the svn FGAddon is
now.

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


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