Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: March 2006:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#15809) Remove (ig)tired
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#15809) Remove (ig)tired

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: per@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#15809) Remove (ig)tired
From: "Benedict Adamson" <badamson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 12:29:44 -0800
Reply-to: bugs@xxxxxxxxxxx

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=15809 >

Daniel Markstedt wrote:
...
> Would it be very difficult to leave a backwards compatibility server
> option for a few versions..?
...

If we allow an option, we have the same amount of code to maintain, even 
if the default ruleset does not use the option. But if the default 
ruleset does not use an option, the option will rarely be tested and its 
code will eventually rot. So there is an argument for discarding options 
that few would want to use.

And I think the converse argument holds: if the game has an option, we 
should support it well; in particular, the AI should handle it well. The 
bombardment and game-loss flags stand out as particular current problems 
in this respect.





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