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: Freeciv Developers <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Documentation, Usability and Development
From: Justin Moore <justin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 12:27:58 -0500 (EST)

> > - Borders
> I got the impression the last patch I have seen didn't got the coastal
> city case right.

   Put it in development.  Let people download it, use it, and somebody
will eventually fix it when they get frustrated with it not being 100%

> > - Sound
> I have objections about the architecture of the last patch I have
> seen. Note that the "clear idea" of the person doesn't make the patch
> right in the larger picture.

   True.  I don't recall the architecture of the last patch, though.  I
know we've had at least two shots at it since I started reading the list
this summer.  From what I gather, those weren't the first.  Get a general,
very rough consensus and put it in CVS once compiles and runs most of the
time.  Again, people will fix it when it bothers them.  If it really
bothers them, it's CVS and we can back it out.

> > - Increasing the number of nations
> I have made a patch. I was lazy and haven't added backward
> compatibility. If this wasn't the case the patch would be
> applied. Feel free to do add the backward compatibility.

   I hate to say this, but at some point we really need to break backwards
compatability with the older cruft.  If we get a development tree and can
do one release with that, I think we should think long and hard about
starting to make a clean break to a 2.0 release.  Just like apache made
some serious serious changes to their architecture with 2.0, I think we
should, too.  Any questions about the evils of backwards compatability?
Just ask Intel. :)

> Besides enlarging the number of possible nations at the technical
> level there were also discussion about the presentation of such a
> large number of nation. IMHO these can be tackled later. For example
> with an extra field for each nation which holds some type like "middle
> ages","antiquity", "modern nations".

   Make the enlargement possible, and yes, worry about the rest later.

> > - Server overhault
> This is too general. The unification is a good idea but I have seen no
> patches.

   I sent in some huge patches, but several people complained about it,
saying that I had actually written code^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
not thought out the design enough and their whiz-bang paper tiger was
better.  Since then I've heard nothing about it.


Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0129
Email:  justin@xxxxxxxxxxx

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