Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Justin Moore <justin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Freeciv Developers <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development
From: Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 19:44:06 +0100
Reply-to: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 12:03:57PM -0500, Justin Moore wrote:
> > >    Possibly.  But then we get back to the fact that it's just a game.
> > > Perhaps a slightly modified Brooks' rule works here (if you want a
> > > software engineering approach): Plan to throw two away.  Maybe three.  But
> > > in order for us to make those more drastic changes, we need a development
> > > branch (*nudge nudge*).
> >
> > I have asked mayself hard if I should implement a new client from
> > scratch. I got the network layer finished and then stopped. I think it
> > is a nice goal. If you use the existing wire protocol you can
> > concentrate on one part (the client for example).
>    Initially I personally am not in the business of rewriting the client.
> I'd be up for working on the unifying GUI and some of the server rewrite
> stuff (what happened to that, anyway?).
> > As for the development branch: setup your own like the AC people and
> > Ingo have done.
>    But then it's "the AC people" or "those wacked-out bleeding-edge
> development people" and not "The Freeciv Unstable Tree".  Most major
> projects that I know of have more than one major branch "officially"
> sponsored by the same people.  I'm not saying that you personally have to
> manage the unstable tree; in fact I think someone who's a bit more willing
> to take risks would be better suited for it.  You do a good job of keeping
> the main tree clean, reducing bugs, and are very strict about what you
> accept.  This is excellent for the main tree, but can stifle major
> changes.  We need another maintainer who's willing to manage the unstable
> branch and let code mature until it's stable.  Unfortunately I have
> neither the time or the experience to do this, otherwise I'd be willing to
> put my money (and time) where my mouth is. :)

If there is such a branch you have to define the goal of this
branch. What happens if the AC people came and ask the maintainer of
this branch if they can't apply the AC patch(es)?

Also note that the maintaining of a branch needs man power. So however
maintains the branch will have reduced time for "normal" development.


 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Reality? That's where the pizza delivery guy comes from!"

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]