Re: Issues updating planes located in FGAddon

> On 1 Jun 2026, at 06:01, Josh Davidson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I am once again asking if we can move to another place (not SF) or move to git submodules…


To consider moving, we would need a willing host which is politically acceptable (GitHub is probably not…) and a migration strategy which handles the current data without losing eg history *and* some people to support different developers who might not be comfortable using for example Git. That’s quite a lot to ask, so it probably needs a coordinated team effort, starting with some R&D of what providers could work, and how, and creating some test migration scripts.

(Eg, can we find a provider which allows non-Git access over something like SFTP, for people who really can’t use Git?)

Just saying 'use submodules’ doesn’t help us, we will get banned if we auto-create a project for each aircraft on most providers, I would guess. (And do we even want that anyway?) And eg if we added all those submodules on our current GitLab, it would make a bunch of the Group-level stuff pretty tricky to manage. So there’s the technical thing of do we want solution X or Y, and there’s the biz / political thing of what providers will be long-term ok with a particular solution, and what is the intersection of those two things.

However, one thing maybe worth pointing out: with the improvements to the catalog build scripts, you do *not* need to have your aircraft in FGaddon, to have it be included in the default catalog. We can ‘just’ add your upstream SCM to the config:

	https://gitlab.com/flightgear/fgmeta-python/-/blob/next/catalog/stable-2024-catalog/catalog.config.xml?ref_type=heads

.. and then eg the MD-11 or A320 could come direct from Git. (Presumably from a stable branch!)

Kind regards,
James

_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel