Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: February 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Add BOOL_VAL around ANDs
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Add BOOL_VAL around ANDs

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gregory Berkolaiko <gberkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv development list <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Add BOOL_VAL around ANDs
From: Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 15:21:56 +0100

Dear diary, on Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 02:03:40PM CET, I got a letter,
where Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> told me, that...
> > As for the patch, you might as well make a function
> 
> > bool contains_special(int tspecials, enum tile_special_type special)
> 
> This would be the one with the lowest level and will always possible.

Agreed.

> > or even
> 
> > bool tile_has_special(struct *tile ptile, enum tile_special_type special)

This would be the real encapsulation being done. Though....

> Sometimes we have no ptile.

This should occur mostly only in the part of freeciv where we mess with the map
itself, thus not breaking the encapsulation. We can just call
contains_special(ptile->special, special) from tile_has_special(ptile,
special).

> Note that I commited the patch already.

It appears to me that the development is getting more chaotic now.. (compared
to situation in November/December) It looks there's not even clear consensus
between the maintainers what're the current goals and what should we do now;
like vasco commiting recently the patches in order to make g++ happy, or like
you saying that cleanups are low-priority and we should focus on finishing
features for 1.12.1 now (before about a month) (this apparently changed
mysteriously and without any notice i cought; and I believe your previous
opinion was much more correct).

IMHO we just need to review the patches and have some time for that (like 2
days at least - after all, we don't hurry anywhere, do we?).  I had a little
different opinion before two months, but now it looks like this doesn't work
well; like the patches which got commited too soon after posted for review or
which didn't posted for review at all (like the pointers stuff or all [or
almost all] vasco's patches). It seems we have two or three (raimar, vasco and
mike [he is at least interested in my job ;]) active maintainers now, so what
about enforcing the policy that maintainer should never commit own patches?  I
think we are getting into trouble now with this 'cleanups', changing too much
things too fast.

-- 

                                Petr "Pasky" Baudis

* UN*X programmer && admin         * IPv6 guy (XS26 co-coordinator)
* elinks maintainer                * FreeCiv AI hacker
* IRCnet operator
.
I love deadlines.
I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
-- Douglas Adams.
.
Public PGP key && geekcode && homepage: http://pasky.ji.cz/~pasky/


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