Responding to Lydiot

The Club of all those banned or deleted form the "official" FlightGear forum for speaking out political inconvenient truths or just things, the rulers over there didn't want to hear.
User avatar
IAHM-COL
Posts: 6409
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Contact:

Responding to Lydiot

Postby IAHM-COL » Sun May 15, 2016 7:07 pm

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 65#p285340
Lydiot wrote:a) What does "too hard" mean? Did the people that founded FGMembers or are using its repo have "commit access"? If they did, what was the problem? If they didn't, then I guess my point still stands. Further more, "earn the trust of the FlightGear community." Surely you see how that can be entirely subjective, right?


Hi Lydiot. Since March 2015 (just a month after I established FGMEMBERS) I contacted reiteratively Mr. Torsten requesting for access to svn, and a few small structural changes with the goal of Keeping FGMEMBERS and FGADDon in SYNC!Guess what? I was a rejected proposal, but let me work you through this.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc

R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?

User avatar
IAHM-COL
Posts: 6409
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Contact:

Re: Responding to Lydiot

Postby IAHM-COL » Sun May 15, 2016 7:13 pm

https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/ma ... /33553676/
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 created


Thanks for your responses to this petition,
Sincerely

Israel Hernandez
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc

R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?

User avatar
IAHM-COL
Posts: 6409
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Contact:

Re: Responding to Lydiot

Postby IAHM-COL » Sun May 15, 2016 7:16 pm

https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/ma ... /33553749/

It took Torsten 10 minutes to decide for a vetoing, offering no technical insight.
T.Dreyer devel.lis 3/6/15 at 16:54 wrote:Sorry, dude. The guy wearing glasses is an admin of fgaddon.

> 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 .... etc

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc

R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?

User avatar
IAHM-COL
Posts: 6409
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Contact:

Re: Responding to Lydiot

Postby IAHM-COL » Sun May 15, 2016 7:19 pm

I swallow pride and insist

https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/ma ... /33553883/
IH-COL again on the devel list 3/6/15 at 17:05 wrote:Hi Torsten!
Nice. That's you... Rite?

Thus, let me address you directly, again, therefore, the request to
consider reconstructing FGADDON with history is particularly: Would you
guys be interested in taking extra steps and reconstructing it with full
commit history?

Maybe is the right thing to do, and a way to make the git area fully
compatible to the SVN area?
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc

R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?

User avatar
IAHM-COL
Posts: 6409
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Contact:

Re: Responding to Lydiot

Postby IAHM-COL » Sun May 15, 2016 7:22 pm

Torsten details finally that he did not even took the time to read my petition

<TLDR> trademark = Too Long Did Not Read

And claims finally, that in those 5 minutes he considered what needed to attempt at syncing FGMEMBERS to FGADDon and that the topic was closed! For Good.

Torsten Dreyer Devel.List 03/07/16 08:21Z wrote:Israel,

when the transition of fgdata is complete, we have a system that does what
it should and works for most of us perfectly well. What looks like a
win-win for you is actually a win-loose for me
and I am on the loose side
as I am wasting time with it without having any benefit. Personaly, I can't
see any need for duplicating the repositories.

And to be honest: Over the last month I had all the fun with pushing files
around and converting fgdata that one could probably have. I want to
continue with Phi, I want to get the FSWeekend equipment working again
after a HD crash (just 8 month to go!), I have a C172 airframe that I want
to power by FG. I want to practice single-engine CATII ILS approaches in
heavy croswind in FlightGear. I want to renew my real life pilot license.
And last but not least, I have a lovely family to spend the upcoming spring
with.

Life is too short for useless work.

<tldr>No, I am not considering your proposal.</tldr>

Torsten
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc

R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?

User avatar
IAHM-COL
Posts: 6409
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Location: Homey, NV (KXTA) - U.S.A
Contact:

Re: Responding to Lydiot

Postby IAHM-COL » Sun May 15, 2016 7:29 pm

You know how to read, Lydiot, you will notice that I intended and efforted really hard to get FGADDon to fully sync both ways to FGMEMBERS, thus making them having just some sort of convenient redundancy.

Torsten response is that I write to long. That is does not care. That FGADDon works perfectly well and NEED NO CONTENT from FGMEMBERS. And that he is too busy to allow me to modify FGADDON in a way to make syncing semiautomatically.

And that's how we end up today. When they say we are an hostile fork because we don't attempt at passing data towards upstream. I am not currently interested in shouldering that work. The core developers have always regarded FGMEMBERS content as unnecessary duplication. Syncing is not that hard, but on the way their "working perfect infrastructure" is set, syncing automatically both ways is dangerous for SVN (linear histories in subversion problems)

And that's what I thought that FGADDon needed to be reconstructed to be FGMEMBERS friendly.

I also implied that I would appreciate being able to sync; As in having commit rights.

Really, I think they should just either 1) relax and ignore the worthless content in FGMEMBERS, as to not enter in a "win loose situation". or 2) enter on a win-lose situation and do the syncing they wish manually -- Of the GPL content they wish.

But really, the best ultimate solution for the project at this point is that they archive SVN FGADDon and they move all aircraft development to FGMEMBERS as a more solid development sandbox.
I can shoulder the work needed to do that in 2 hours !!. But I assure you, since this means for them to loose a bit of face value, that is not going to be happening that easily.
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/IAHM-COL/gpg-pubkey/master/pubkey.asc

R.M.S.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it?

OPFOR77
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 7:30 pm

Re: Responding to Lydiot

Postby OPFOR77 » Tue May 17, 2016 7:45 pm

tldr doesn't mean he didn't read your post... the section in the <tldr> tags is a summary of his point - not an indication he didn't read yours. It's common courtesy across the interwebs to summarize a long post at the beggining or the end with a tl;dr.

When tl;dr is by itself, with no other words around it, that's when it indicates that someone didn't read the long post.

For example, if all this post said was:
tl;dr: you and torsten didn't get along with fgmembers and fgaddon merging.

That'd be a summary.

But, if all this post said was:
tl;dr

That'd mean I didn't read it.
OPRF Fighter Jock and Dev

bomber
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Responding to Lydiot

Postby bomber » Tue May 17, 2016 9:46 pm

Wow and they get confused when big words like slaughter are used...
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell

User avatar
jwocky
Site Admin
Posts: 1833
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Responding to Lydiot

Postby jwocky » Tue May 17, 2016 10:11 pm

Well, you can maybe avoid three or more syllabi words for their sake, but if they get already confused by two ... that will be a hard one. Did you try grunt and sign language?
Free speech can never be achieved by dictatorial measures!

bomber
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Responding to Lydiot

Postby bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 7:43 am

No I just put my back out explaining my opinion doing a very complicated set of ganchos'.... not sure they understand.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchell


Return to “Club of the Banned”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests