Follow-up Comment #13, bug #21115 (project freeciv):
> S2_4: nreqs must be used, patch ruleset sanity checking to
> disallow negated = TRUE reqs
> Oh, if we are still going to release 2.3.5, sanity check patch
> planned for S2_4 should go to S2_3 too.
Hm, I'm not wild about potentially disallowing rulesets on stable branches. An
ultra-stable 2.3 update is not much use if the ruleset you were previously
happy with (didn't tickle any bugs) now doesn't load at all.
I'd go for emitting log_error() on these branches, at most -- that allows us
to communicate that it's not recommended, and shows up fairly obviously in the
client. (Similar to what we do when savegame loading goes a bit wonky.)
On 2.5 and 2.6 we still have time to set a hard policy IMO...
> What about S2_5? Is it transition version where both are
> supposed to work?
That really depends on whether we can make present=FALSE reliable in time.
Right now I don't think we've scoped out how much work there is to get there
from here -- all the stuff I've fixed, I happened to spot on the way somewhere
else, I haven't done an exhaustive survey.
(I suppose autogames with rulesets defined each way would be one way to get a
clue...)
> maybe it's simply too late in stabilization to make
> present = FALSE the default now?)
There's a weak argument which says that since the syntax on 2.5 and 2.6 will
be different (negated=TRUE vs present=FALSE), we should only start encouraging
this style once the syntax has settled (i.e. in 2.6) to avoid two lots of
ruleset rewriting for third parties.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?21115>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
