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: Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:22:12 +0100

> > > - 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%
> correct.
100% agreement!

> > > - 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. :)
Yes, but IMHO this is not the case. It should be easy to introduce capability
for this, so why to break the compatibility for this?

Let's put it into CVS and IMHO it will get fixed soon.

> > 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".
I don't see any mean in that.

> > > - 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.
Huge patches are bad idea, approval chance near zero, IMHO.


                                Petr "Pasky" Baudis

UN*X programmer, UN*X administrator, hobbies = IPv6, IRC
Real Users hate Real Programmers.
Public PGP key, geekcode and stuff:

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