[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Submit patch again?

[Bert Buchholz <bertbuchholz@xxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:42:27PM +0200, Thue wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 August 2001 22:17, Bert Buchholz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > some days ago, shortly before the 1.12.0 release, ich submitted a
> > watchtower-patch. Apparently, noone took notice. So, what am I
> > supposed to do about this, what does that mean? Does it mean, that
> > noone could make use of it, or did noone try to apply it? I had
> > hoped, if for some reason, the patch didn't work, I would get
> > feedback or some kind of response. Or did this happen because the
> > immanent release of 1.12.0? I'm a bit unsure about of what to make of
> > it.
> >
> > Meanwhile, i suppose, the patch is too old to be applied against
> > current cvs. So, should I resend it (updated againt cvs) and hope
> > some takes a look at it now? Please give me a few pointers, because
> > as I stated in my first mail, I'm new to this team/cvs way of
> > development, and maybe there's just something I didn't get quite
> > right or... hell, what do I know? ;-)
> >
> > Bert
> 
> Now you ask...

Hmm, what's that supposed to mean?
 
> I looked shortly at it, but was just too lazy to say so on the list. :P
> 
> I ignored it because:
> -starting a conversation would just make me lead you on making a patch 
> I liked, and it would then be more efficient for me to just make the 
> patch myself. The area of the code you would modify is rather involved, 
> but I have made a good deal of it in the first place and understand it 
> pretty well. (Fx there are some FoW bugs in your patch)
> -There were enough patches on freeciv-dev that should be applied first.
> 
> I would like watchtowers to work by always giving vision around them, 
> regardless if there is a unit on them.

Well, so that means I shouldn't submit a changed patch that fits your
"needs"? :-)
Okay, if you wanna do it yourself, I can't (and don't want to) stop you.
But isn't this pointless? I submit a patch, it's being discussed, people
say what they like and what they don't like, changes are made to the
patch until everyone likes it... isn't that the way it's supposed to
happen? 
 
> Also, as I concentrated on the 1.12.0 release I didn't want to get 
> involved in issues not relevant for 1.12.0.

Yes, I mentioned this guess in my mail, that wouldn't be a problem
really, right?

> It is not that all patches get rejected like this, but this was the 
> reason I ignored this one.
> Patches that (are not so complicated)/(don't touch so much structure) 
> and bugfixes have a better chance of making it in.

So again, that sounds to me as if it wouldn't make much sense for me to keep
working on that watchtower-thingy. That's what you wanna say? If so,
then tell me, so that I won't waste more time on this issue, if it
won't lead anywhere.

Bert