[Freeciv-Dev] Re: release plans

[Artur Biesiadowski <abies@xxxxxxxxx>]

David Pfitzner wrote:

> You can already do this to some extent by adding non-required
> tags to the capability string, and checking has_capability().
> So I don't see a huge advantage to "optional packets".

Yes, it is quite similar indeed - 'optional packet' id name could be put
into capability string or packet header as well. But the problem is with
packet id enum. You cannot have patch adding a bit of optional
functionality to server/client - because it will break packets ids with
greater numbers. I understand that for now all change hit cvs, but at
some point somebody may like to put some unofficial patches to
server/client. With just capability string he breaks enum ordering - and
server could not work with both patched and non-patched clients.


> But also: have you designed, implemented, tested, and debugged
> code for optional packets?  Otherwise its getting a bit late
> to go into 1.9.0 even if it would be desirable.
No, I haven't. So I guess it is out of question for 1.9.0.

Artur