Follow-up Comment #14, bug #21115 (project freeciv):
> Hm, I'm not wild about potentially disallowing rulesets on
> stable branches.
True, that would be quite blatantly against datafile format freeze.
log_error() (limited to one client popup even if there's multiple negated
reqs) sounds sensible - in most cases it just makes ruleset author to fix the
ruleset (should be clearly instructed in the message)
> (I suppose autogames with rulesets defined each way would be
> one way to get a clue...)
Just to make sure we don't do duplicate work: have you done any work to
convert our rulesets? If not, I'll create patch for that (not to be committed
yet, obviously, but to be used in testing).
> 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)
It's quite perfect counter-argument to the main argument for using negated =
TRUE as default; that it will save ruleset authors from updating requirements
when 2.6 comes out.
Reply to this item at:
Message sent via/by Gna!
Freeciv-dev mailing list