Daniel Markstedt wrote:
Most of the discussion took place in PR#39690 IIRC.
Not somewhere I'd expect such a major decision to be discussed, buried at
the end of a thread discussing something else entirely.
I'm opposed to removing embassies from the game code. It's required for
proper civ*
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
I'm opposed to removing embassies from the game code. It's required for
proper civ* emulation support -- better to make everything configurable.
Seems to me that the entire project is forking.
Your attitude is not very constructive. I can
--- Per I. Mathisen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
I'm opposed to removing embassies from the game
code. It's required for
proper civ* emulation support -- better to make
everything configurable.
Seems to me that the entire project is
On 9/24/07, William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apparently without discussion, 2.1 has been officially abandoned, as 2.2
has been branched in the repository. I will no longer work on 2.1.
Unfortunately, nobody has yet added the 2.2 tag in RT. I cannot tag
things for 2.2, until
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Apparently without discussion, 2.1 has been officially abandoned, as 2.2
has been branched in the repository.
If you did not read the discussion, how could you reach the conclusion it
has been abandoned? The plan is still to release 2.1 soon
Per I. Mathisen wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Apparently without discussion, 2.1 has been officially abandoned, as 2.2
has been branched in the repository.
If you did not read the discussion, how could you reach the conclusion it
has been abandoned? The plan is
On 9/24/07, William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Per I. Mathisen wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Apparently without discussion, 2.1 has been officially abandoned, as 2.2
has been branched in the repository.
If you did not read the discussion, how could
