Motherlode Version Guideline Question

Post requests, images, descriptions and reports about work in progress here.
Topic author
BobHegwood
Posts: 1803
Joined: 12.10.2007
With us: 17 years 5 months

Motherlode Version Guideline Question

Post #1by BobHegwood » 16.01.2008, 03:31

Okay, let's make this as simple as possible...

Is anyone using a version of Celestia prior to Version 1.4.1?

If so, then why?

If not, then why do we need to keep the older stuff around on the
ML?

Thanks, Brain-Dead
Brain-Dead Geezer Bob is now using...
Windows Vista Home Premium, 64-bit on a
Gateway Pentium Dual-Core CPU E5200, 2.5GHz
7 GB RAM, 500 GB hard disk, Nvidia GeForce 7100
Nvidia nForce 630i, 1680x1050 screen, Latest SVN

Avatar
Chuft-Captain
Posts: 1779
Joined: 18.12.2005
With us: 19 years 3 months

Re: Motherlode Version Guideline Question

Post #2by Chuft-Captain » 16.01.2008, 09:40

BobHegwood wrote:If not, then why do we need to keep the older stuff around on the
ML?

Thanks, Brain-Dead
Because addons designed for earlier versions will usually still work perfectly OK in later versions of Celestia, so there's no reason to trash them.

Even if they are broken, there's always a chance that the creator (or someone else) might update them for the new versions one day. (That's the beauty of open-source).

CC
"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding technological civilization?"
-- Gerard K. O'Neill (1969)

CATALOG SYNTAX HIGHLIGHTING TOOLS LAGRANGE POINTS

Topic author
BobHegwood
Posts: 1803
Joined: 12.10.2007
With us: 17 years 5 months

Post #3by BobHegwood » 16.01.2008, 12:47

Thanks for the opinion. :wink:
Brain-Dead Geezer Bob is now using...
Windows Vista Home Premium, 64-bit on a
Gateway Pentium Dual-Core CPU E5200, 2.5GHz
7 GB RAM, 500 GB hard disk, Nvidia GeForce 7100
Nvidia nForce 630i, 1680x1050 screen, Latest SVN

Topic author
BobHegwood
Posts: 1803
Joined: 12.10.2007
With us: 17 years 5 months

Re: Motherlode Version Guideline Question

Post #4by BobHegwood » 19.01.2008, 01:52

Chuft-Captain wrote: Because addons designed for earlier versions will usually still work perfectly OK in later versions of Celestia, so there's no reason to trash them.

Even if they are broken, there's always a chance that the creator (or someone else) might update them for the new versions one day. (That's the beauty of open-source).

CC


And, there's always the chance that they WON'T fix them too...
This seems to be the case at the moment. Getting NO opinions, and
NO interest in this topic at all.

These add-ons need to be TRASHED... If the author wishes to update
the add-on, they can certainly do that whether the add-on is listed on
the ML or NOT. Sheesh!

Thanks, Frustrated, Grumpy, Geezer Bob
Brain-Dead Geezer Bob is now using...
Windows Vista Home Premium, 64-bit on a
Gateway Pentium Dual-Core CPU E5200, 2.5GHz
7 GB RAM, 500 GB hard disk, Nvidia GeForce 7100
Nvidia nForce 630i, 1680x1050 screen, Latest SVN

Topic author
BobHegwood
Posts: 1803
Joined: 12.10.2007
With us: 17 years 5 months

Post #5by BobHegwood » 22.01.2008, 22:54

234 Views and 1 reply...

I rest my case. Nobody gives a damn. :wink:

Also, if V3 stuff still works, then I have NOT deleted it simply
because of the age.
Brain-Dead Geezer Bob is now using...
Windows Vista Home Premium, 64-bit on a
Gateway Pentium Dual-Core CPU E5200, 2.5GHz
7 GB RAM, 500 GB hard disk, Nvidia GeForce 7100
Nvidia nForce 630i, 1680x1050 screen, Latest SVN

chris
Site Admin
Posts: 4211
Joined: 28.01.2002
With us: 23 years 2 months
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

Post #6by chris » 22.01.2008, 23:08

I think that people do care, but you asked the question, "Does anyone use a version of Celestia before 1.4.1?" to Celestia forum readers--were you expecting someone to say 'yes?' :)

Anyhow, I understand the point of your post. My advice would be to leave alone add-ons that still work in Celestia 1.4.1 and later versions. If an add-on only works (in the sense that it looks more or less like you think the author intended) in versions prior to 1.4.0, then I don't see much point in keeping it around. If there's an add-on thats obviously been superseded by more recent ones, then the decision to dump or keep is clearer. On the other hand, you should be more lenient with add-ons that are unique; perhaps there should be a section on the Motherlode for interesting but non-working add-ons that need to be adopted.

--Chris

Avatar
t00fri
Developer
Posts: 8772
Joined: 29.03.2002
Age: 23
With us: 23 years
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post #7by t00fri » 22.01.2008, 23:19

chris wrote: non-working add-ons that need to be adopted.

--Chris


For the sake of the "poor" foreigners among us:

adopted ?? or rather adapted ;-)

F.
Image

ajtribick
Developer
Posts: 1855
Joined: 11.08.2003
With us: 21 years 7 months

Post #8by ajtribick » 22.01.2008, 23:22

Does anyone know what versions are being provided by in the repositories of the current batch of Linux distributions? Ubuntu Gutsy has 1.4.1, but it would be good to check this out for other distros before deciding to cut off 1.3.2.

chris
Site Admin
Posts: 4211
Joined: 28.01.2002
With us: 23 years 2 months
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

Post #9by chris » 22.01.2008, 23:46

t00fri wrote:
chris wrote: non-working add-ons that need to be adopted.

--Chris

For the sake of the "poor" foreigners among us:

adopted ?? or rather adapted ;-)

F.


I actually did mean adopted . . . Adopted by someone willing to work on them, and--just to be confusing--adapt them for more recent versions of Celestia. :)

--Chris

Topic author
BobHegwood
Posts: 1803
Joined: 12.10.2007
With us: 17 years 5 months

Post #10by BobHegwood » 22.01.2008, 23:56

chris wrote:I actually did mean adopted . . . Adopted by someone willing to work on them, and--just to be confusing--adapt them for more recent versions of Celestia. :)

--Chris


Well, that's the entire problem in a nutshell, Chris...

No one wishes to revise their old add-ons (with the exception of some
super creators like John van Vliet), and IT AIN'T MY JOB to revise
the things. I'm having 8 to 10 hours a day now just trying to revise,
test and re-word descriptions for ALL of the ML add-ons.

Methinks you misunderstand where I'm coming from here. :wink:
Brain-Dead Geezer Bob is now using...
Windows Vista Home Premium, 64-bit on a
Gateway Pentium Dual-Core CPU E5200, 2.5GHz
7 GB RAM, 500 GB hard disk, Nvidia GeForce 7100
Nvidia nForce 630i, 1680x1050 screen, Latest SVN

fungun
Posts: 315
Joined: 30.07.2007
Age: 63
With us: 17 years 8 months
Location: Iowa, USA

Post #11by fungun » 23.01.2008, 20:48

BobHegwood, if you need some help on some of the older addons let me know. I am using 1.4.1 here.

Tim

Topic author
BobHegwood
Posts: 1803
Joined: 12.10.2007
With us: 17 years 5 months

Post #12by BobHegwood » 23.01.2008, 22:44

fungun wrote:BobHegwood, if you need some help on some of the older addons let me know. I am using 1.4.1 here.

Tim


Hey, I very much appreciate the offer my friend. Don't think it's
necessary now though. I've gotten through most of the older stuff,
and we're approximately 50% of the way through all of the
add-ons at this point.

The reason for this thread was really just to see what would happen
if I deleted some of the very old stuff which no longer works in the
newer versions of Celestia. Fortunately though, most of these items
still work (with some added instructions) and everything is now
A-okay. :wink:

Then too, I just like to spout off once in a while. :lol:

Thanks Tim, Brain-Dead Bob
Brain-Dead Geezer Bob is now using...
Windows Vista Home Premium, 64-bit on a
Gateway Pentium Dual-Core CPU E5200, 2.5GHz
7 GB RAM, 500 GB hard disk, Nvidia GeForce 7100
Nvidia nForce 630i, 1680x1050 screen, Latest SVN


Return to “Add-on development”