Follow-up Comment #4, patch #4739 (project freeciv):

On civ2civ3: I agree that having a single 'editor' for the ruleset who's
thinking as deeply about balance and AI issues as you are is very valuable.
Personally (not speaking for anyone else) I'd like you to retain some sort of
editorial control for as long as you're up for it.

Really, I would civ2civ3 to be under version control with you as the authority
accepting patches. I think that would enable more people to suggest and
contribute changes without having to worry about forking / conflicts.
Whenever I tweak the svn version, I'm afraid I'm going to clash with whatever
you're working on privately, so I'd rather be able to propose patches that you
can decide on and reconcile with your own development. This way I could also
propose patches to versions not shipped with Freeciv, such as the 2.4 modpack

Not sure if that version control should be in Freeciv svn or elsewhere with
Freeciv pulling from it, given the existence of versions other than what we're

I think it could use a version naming system, too, so that if some change is
particularly controversial there's a good way to refer to the old version and
a ready-made name for a fork, and so the "since previous version" bit of the
README has something clear to refer to. Not sure if we should tie that naming
system to Freeciv versions or not; if its future lies with Freeciv it's
probably better not to invent a new _v3, _v4 etc version scheme.
(Patch #4734 should help.)

>> I'm afraid that it could force to freeze the development of 
>> the rules
> I was thinking that we could use the modpack tool for that. I 
> mean, once v2.5 is released, the ruleset civ2civ3 could be kept 
> as stable as possible (only bugfixes and important unbalances), 
> while we could keep another civ2civ3 version available in 
> modpack tool where we backport the changes included in trunk 
> that needs to be tested (and are compatible with previous 
> v2.5). 
Oh, yes, I like this idea, if you're up for it.
I like seeing civ2civ3 develop, but I have been caught out by the 2.4 version
on changing substantially in the middle of a game.
We'd have a "civ2civ3_26" (or _2_6 or _v3 or _dev) modpack for each stable
branch which may be unsuitable to upgrade mid-game (old savegames may not
work, your strategy may be invalidated etc); unlike the shipped civ2civ3, you
get to choose when to upgrade a modpack independently of Freeciv.
And then the next major version of Freeciv would ship with a 'stable' civ2civ3
including whichever major changes looked like a good idea (freezing before

> Also, as you may have noticed... I'm not native english 
> speaker, and every text that I wrote for the ruleset should be 
> revised.
I do plan to have a go at this before string freeze.


Reply to this item at:


  Message sent via/by Gna!

Freeciv-dev mailing list

Reply via email to