Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> On 23 April 2013 03:39, Emmet Hikory wrote:
> > I had two items on my TODO: one about cleaning up README.rulesets to
> > address some of the inaccuracies that have crept in over time and one
> > about updating/unifying all the general class comments in the individual
> > rulesets.
> > 
> > If I am planning to rewrite README.rulesets anyway, is it worth
> > importing all the detail information from the ruleset comments, and
> > referencing README.rulesets therein, with an expectation that future
> > patches can be strongly encouraged to also update the docs, or is it
> > believed that this isn't going to work, and I should continue to proceed
> > with updates to both sets of documentation?
> >
> >
>  - Ruleset comments are what someone copying one of our supplied rulesets
> as base of their modification reads. (S)he is much more unlikely to check
> some detail from separate document than reading it from the very file (s)he
> is editing. At least classic (or whatever is our default ruleset at the
> time) should have everything documented.
>  - I see README.rulesets more of as overview of what rulesets are,
> containing thngs that apply to all ruleset files (such as inifile syntax)
> that do not fit in comments of any particular ruleset.

    This makes sense.  I'll proceed with updates to each individually.
In the interest of allowing ruleset authors to start from any of the
shipping rulesets, I'll put comments in all of them (rather referencing
some specific ruleset as containing instructions (which compilicates
derivation without benefiting origination).

    Thank you.


Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to