[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2574) RFC: (PR# 1762) corruption revisited

["Raahul Kumar via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--- Davide Pagnin via RT <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 03:48, rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx via RT wrote:
> At 10:17 AM 02/12/15 -0800, Per I. Mathisen via RT wrote:
> >
> >On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, Davide Pagnin via RT wrote:
> >> This is actual code of city.h city_corruption(), I want to open a
> > >> discussion on this whole topic and perhaps reach some agreement on what
> > >> need changes.
> > >
> > >I agree with Raahul that this should preferably come after his waste
> > >patch.
> > 
> > Sounds like a very good idea. There are lots of things to debate about
> > the current corruption scheme. I don't think this has anything to do
> > with whether waste is added using one scheme or another and it is really
> > not quite fair to put all the past sins of corruption as riders on this
> > task.
> 
> I agree that adding waste or not, isn't related to this.
> 
> But as I pointed out:
> 
> 1) waste copy the corruption scheme, that is flawed
> 
> 2) waste need mandatory capability
> 
> 3) corruption scheme modification will need mandatory capability
> (function included in common/ are used both by client and server, and if
> you use CMA, in you client, you can't disagree with server, on how you
> calculate corruption nor waste)

The CMA does not need to be updated with regards to any change in corruption.
We send it the corruption value, not the process of how it is computed.

The CMA does not calculate waste/corruption. No need for a mandatory string.
 
> 4) when finished, waste patch can easily be maintained up-to-date for
> HEAD inclusion

Davide, you want to do too much in one patch. The suggested corruption changes
can wait. I want to get the waste patch in first, then your suggested
corruption changes. 
 
Aloha,
RK

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com