Now already evaluating this list with beta1 in mind (mainly because
network protocol and datafile format freezes are needed before beta)


On 12 December 2013 22:41, Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 October 2013 23:22, Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's about time we list what features we still want to go in to 2.5,
>> and start following our progress. At this point idea is not to list
>> every detail and single patch, but the bigger features.
>> Here's list of features I think should make it to 2.5 (not necessarily
>> complete - I may have forgotten something) I hope other maintainers to
>> reply with their own additions and comments to the list.
>>
>>
>> patch #4190: Split translations to multiple po-files
>>
>> If we are going to add information about what translation domain translations
>> about the nation should be fetched to the rulesets, it must be done before
>> datafile format freeze.
>
>  This has been implemented to the extend I dreamed about, but the
> ticket has been given to jtn to further evaluate what more is needed.

 ?

>
>> Qt-client
>>
>> Qt-client is coming along so well that it would be a shame not to get it
>> to "supported client" status in 2.5. Mir3x probably keeps on working on
>> Qt4 based version.
>> It's such a long time before 2.6 is to be expected, that I really don't want
>> to make Qt-client of 2.5 Qt4-only. We need to support building against Qt5
>> too. I'm working on that.
>
>  It's 2.5 now.

 Err.. Qt5 now.

>  New Qt-client related item is that I'd want freeciv-mp-qt to be in
> good enough shape to be used in those installations that use
> Qt-client, so one does not need to mix gtk-based freeciv-mp-gtk[23] to
> Qt system.
> I'm working on this.

 Mostly done

>> patch #3448: "Nation sets": allow set of nations that will ever appear
>> in-game to be chosen
>>
>> Affects both network protocol and ruleset format, I think.
>
>  There has been some progress.

 If I have understood correctly all that is missing is support from
some of the clients. That shouldn't stop us from going toward beta (no
network protocol issues, I assume)

>> patch #4088: Included dependencies of sdl-client
>
>  SDL_gfx has been handled.
>
>  SDL_ttf remains. We have files modified from the upstream, so it's
> more understandable, and it's not clear if one should touch that part
> in stable S2_5 any more.

  There's patches about SDL_ttf side too, so this can be closed soon.

>> bug #17887: Tech prerequisites misdisplayed in help if root_req set
>>
>> For a long time this was release blocker for 2.4, until we just worked
>> around the need to get it done for 2.4. I hope we will not be forced to
>> do that again with 2.5.
>
>  No progress.

 Working on that area. TRUNK is getting bigger rewrite, but easy fixes
will go to stable branches too. Those do not need protocol changes, so
this is not blocking beta. It's quite ok for this to wait to beta2.

>> gtk3-client as default
>>
>> Gtk3-client is default client in 2.5. Its remaining issues should be
>> resolved that it would be worthy of that status.
>
>  There's windows version available now, but it has performance issues.

 It would be nice to get it tested in betas, but not going to put
beta1 to who-knows-how-long wait for this. Blocking final 2.5.0,
though.

>> Missing art: bug #20536, bug #20032, bug #20031, bug #20029, bug #20030
>>
>> Getting art contributions has always been hard and wait long. This also means
>> that we try to avoid creating more art needs to S2_5. Such needs should be
>> created earlier in the release cycle giving more time for someone to actually
>> do the work before the release.

 Not blocking beta, but should remind artists that there's eventually
going to be 2.5 release.

>  About the schedule:
>
>  1) Would targeting 01-Mar-14 as datafile format freeze be ok for everyone?
>  If yes, 2) Would targeting network protocol freeze about half a month
> later (15-Mar-14) be ok?
>  If yes, 3) Would targeting beta1 couple of weeks later be ok?

 While it still feels like we are just starting the 2.6 development,
it's actually over 8 months since S2_5 was branched. With our old goal
of major release once a year we would be already 2/3 on the way to
branching S2_6. I think that even 18 Months (like between S2_4 and
S2_5) is going to be challenging (read: after several rather
feature-packet major releases 2.6 might be a bit smaller step forward)
 but in the spirit of "release early, release often" I want to target
02-Nov as S2_6 branching date for now.


 - ML

_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to