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

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:21:56PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> 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).

See my patch.

> > 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).

I agree. Please take a look at the sound patch. If this is in let us
speak about the last two (game startup, unit activation). I also agree
that I found a new tool and I do currently play heavily with it. But
this does benefits freeciv IMHO.

> 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.

In general I agree. However this my not work in practice. For example
I have sent an email one week ago asking the other maintainers to
review and commit the sound patch. Nothing happend. (Note maintainers
that this isn't an attack at you. I know that time and interrest is
limited).

Bottom line: no problem waiting for two days.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "On the eigth day, God started debugging"