IH-COL on the devel list 3/6/15 at 16:42Z wrote:Hi ALL
While appreciating the efforts D Torsten is doing to gain us an aircraft
stripped aircraft FGDATA that is longly overdue, and it will be a nice base
for you all guys to continue developing the fantastic Fligthgear
FS; and
recognizing that a "consensus" had been reached that aircraft will be
mainly developed in a subversion repository, a.k.a FG-ADDON, I wanted to
place a request for FG-ADDON.I hope this email is not a waste of keystrokes!stuart Buchanan wrote:@Stuart Wrote
>>Bear in mind that your fork _will_ diverge over time from the svn fgaddon
respository as there's no guarantee that any commits made to the fgaddon
svn will merge cleanly with your downstream repository. You will need to
take responsibility for resolving any conflicts.
James wrote:@James Wrote:
>>- explicitly allow an aircraft in FGaddon to be made into a Git-svn
import. I.e that an aircraft developer or team can request that they will
maintain their own Git repo for an aircraft, and we will automate
pushing/pulling changes from that repository to fgaddons. The intention
being that for the people who do want to use Git to maintain aircraft,
we’re not putting any obstacles in their way. We do need to figure out the
most efficient / safest model to run git-svn in for this; i.e do we
schedule a cron-job which pulls from a list of trusted Git repos to
fgaddons daily, or something else? I’m sure many different workflows are
possible.
A real alternative, also previously proposed by Chris blues, is to make the
development on git and svn a double-way street. That is improvements in the
git area of aircrafts are rebased on the SVN, and those in the SVN are
rebased in SVN. Mainly, keeping both areas IN SYNC.
That way, developers
can choose for a SCM that fits their style, and at the same style keep an
open development of aircraft that fosters cooperations without necessarily
give many authors write commits on any central repository[.
Also,
if both FG-ADDON and FGMEMBERS are effectivey synchronized, there
will not be a major difference for the end user, where he/she is getting
aircrafts from, in any terms: Direct download, git with chosen modules, SVN
per directory, or the whole SVN repo.Synchronizing the FGMEMBERs and
FG-ADDON repos is very doable with the use of fantastic git tools, such as
git-svn. --yet it may bring political discussions that had to be
acknowledge in the context of a greater leniency into commits that can make
it through in the official branches on both FG-ADDON and FGMEMBERs.
************ IMPORTANTLY **************
To be able to sync both FGMEMBERS and FG-ADDON, and make an effective
two-way highway that will effectively prevent either of these repos to
diverge, their commit histories need to be compatible -- aka the same/have
common commits.
That is not the current case, because FGMEMBERs had been, from the
beginning respectful of the history commits of these aircraft in the FGDATA
repository. While FGADDON has been built on the premise that no=one cares
for a history log anyway and a simplified, First commit can replace
hundreds if not thousands of previously authored steps.
I could remake FGMEMBERS to have FGADDON absurd history log rather simply.
On the contrary, and this is the purpose of this letter:I want to request the FGADDON administrators to consider spending a few
more of their valuable time reconstructing an FGADDON more properly done,
with the history of aircraft from the current fgdata git repo in gitorious,
or from the history logs in FGMEMBERS. Either way, they will be containing
common histories, and such Two-way highway between aircrafts hosted in GIT
(fgmbers) and SVN (FGADDON) could be createdThanks for your responses to this petition,
Sincerely
Israel Hernandez
