[Freeciv-Dev] Re: release plans

[David Pfitzner <dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Artur Biesiadowski <abies@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, this is indeed a problem with the current system, if one 
is dealing with multiple patches which add different packets.

-- David