On 4 January 2014 20:12, Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 January 2014 16:15, Jacob Nevins
> <0jacobnk.fc...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Marko Lindqvist writes:
>>> Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21428 (project freeciv):
>>> [...] I've started designing "Ruleset object deprecation" -feature,
>>> maybe making its debut in 3.0.
>> I've been thinking about this sort of thing too, so I'd be interested in
>> your ideas.
>> For instance, if advances in rulesets ever allowed us to merge the
>> Aqueduct buildings in civ2civ3 into a smaller set, we'd have a problem
>> with savegames.
>> (That's "Aqueduct", "Aqueduct, near river", and "Aqueduct, near lake".)
>  In principle, as long as ruleset author wants to maintain
> compatibility with savegames from version that had some now removed
> object, such as Aqueduct buildings, he needs to have something like:
> [deprecations]
> buildings = { "type", "action", "value"
>  "Aqueduct, near lake", "Discard"
>  "Aqueduct, near river", "Convert", "Aqueduct"
> }

 ..and if you want to split old Aqueduct to civ2civ3 style Aqueduct

buildings = { "type", "action", "value"
 "Aqueduct", "Convert", "Aqueduct" ; Highest priority, keep any
Aqueduct fullfilling updated reqs as Aqueduct
 "Aqueduct", "Convert", "Aqueduct, near river"
 "Aqueduct", "Convert", "Aqueduct, near lake"
 "Aqueduct", "ForceConvert", "Aqueduct" ; Ruleset author wonders if he
should have  "Aqueduct", "Discard" here instead

 - ML

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to