[freeciv-ai] (PR#9247) cm shouldn't count waste as a good thing
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: |
undisclosed-recipients: ; |
Subject: |
[freeciv-ai] (PR#9247) cm shouldn't count waste as a good thing |
From: |
"Jason Short" <jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:17:53 -0700 |
Reply-to: |
rt@xxxxxxxxxxx |
<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=9247 >
> [bhudson - Fri Jul 16 16:42:52 2004]:
> > I like the idea but the patch doesn't apply (conflicts in cm.c) and
> > doesn't compile (factor_target is still used in some of the GUI code).
>
> Doesn't apply? Odd, I had just updated minutes before. As for
> compiling for all the GUI front-ends, is there a convenient way of doing
> that?
Well some other patches were committed before I got to it.
> > It would also be nice to split it up into smaller patches, but that's
> > not strictly necessary.
>
> Looking more carefully, I wonder about removing factor_target -- what is
> the dio_... stuff? I feel leery about changing an interface without
> need. We could simply ignore the field, instead of removing it. This
> also fixes the problem with GUI front-ends.
dio_*** is just network stuff. Removing the factor_target will probably
require some network changes. But now that factor_target is ignored we
need to remove it lest someone be tempted to use it.
Can you make a patch?
> Attached: one patch (cm-ign-...) that ignores factor_target but does not
> eliminate that field.
>
> Independantly, one patch (cm-1-...) that removes the duplicate functions
> from cma_core.c and makes them extern in cm.[ch] ; and one patch that
> depends on it (cm-2-...) that removes the production field (and, while I
> was at it, makes a couple things go from enumerating 0..5 into being a
> for loop).
Very nice.
jason
|
|