[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3024] Inclusion of Alien Worlds to freeciv svn
Update of patch #3024 (project freeciv): Status:None = Ready For Test Planned Release: = 2.5.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #7: Current version of Alien World (compatible with current freeciv TRUNK) Second packet contains documentation which someone might find handy (how and where we should document AW?) (file #15899, file #15900) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: alien.tar.bz2 Size:27 KB File name: aliendoc.tar.bz2 Size:12 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3024 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3024] Inclusion of Alien Worlds to freeciv svn
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #3024 (project freeciv): As new road type definitions are almost ready (ConnectLand road flag support has to go in to freeciv before they are final) I think initial development phase of AW is over. Now would be sensible time to add it to freeciv TRUNK svn if wanted. I myself lean to yes. Another ruleset, maybe later becoming even default one, I'm going to propose for inclusion after some work is what is currently known as civ2civ3. If we are going to add just one ruleset, it should be civ2civ3 and not AW. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3024 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3024] Inclusion of Alien Worlds to freeciv svn
Follow-up Comment #5, patch #3024 (project freeciv): Is there a solid reason why we should limit ourselves to just one more ruleset? Since this ticket is NOT about inclusion in tarball, i see no reason to make a high barrier. At this point i think we should welcome all new rulesets that aren't broken or bloated. So relax your modesty, as we are not talking about leaving deserving rulesets out. If we had a working forum, we could post a poll as to user's favorite rulesets. However, we don't. At this point i could wish we had something comparable to Debian's package popularity contest, but we don't have the code and infrastructure to support it [not to mention dealing with inevitable complaints of trampled privacy]. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3024 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3024] Inclusion of Alien Worlds to freeciv svn
Follow-up Comment #6, patch #3024 (project freeciv): So relax your modesty My modesty is not the problem. Problem is our limited manpower. By accepting rulesets to svn we commit to also maintaining them. Currently any patch that changes ruleset format must contain changes to classic, multiplayer, experimental, civ1, and civ2 rulesets. I've found that this is quite manageable even with more intrusive changes (I've cursed that work just once during gen-road patch series) but every added ruleset makes it less so. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3024 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3024] Inclusion of Alien Worlds to freeciv svn
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3024 (project freeciv): Link to documentation describing current development version of Alien World: http://www.cazfi.net/freeciv/alien/dev/ ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3024 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3024] Inclusion of Alien Worlds to freeciv svn
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3024 (project freeciv): When we start including custom rulesets, where we draw the line? Is AW even best candidate for inclusion? I definitely don't want to use my position as Freeciv maintainer to push my own creation to high profile list if more deserving ones are left out. As far as candidates for inclusion, i have to say here that AW is the only ruleset i've ever heard of [not including the built-in ones, of course]. So i see the main problem as poor visibility: the user has to go out of their way to find these these things, and i'm willing to bet that a fair number of users aren't even aware they can add third-party rulesets. Anything we can reasonably do to increase their visibility is bound to help. I see new rulesets as roughly analogous to the single-player campaigns and multi-player maps that can be added on to Battle For Wesnoth. They vary from pretty basic to absolutely stunning. This would probably be a good time for somebody to come up with an objective set of standards such that any rulesets that get official inclusion work as expected. Beyond meeting these formal standards, i don't think we should reject any submission on [for example] esthetic grounds. As long as they don't break anything, let the user decide if it is worthy of their time and hard drive space. As to the bytes of things, i do want to mention file sizes. I do not wish to see the releases bloat up too much. I see no problem eventually including smaller [though probably less impressive] rulesets. Larger ones can have their own tarball. I'm not sure where we'd draw the line, how about a megabyte? I'm going to mention BFW again, just because they set such a high standard. A standard Wesnoth install gets you just one campaign. The initial game menu has [amongst options to start/load/etc.] a button to fetch more add-ons as they are called. That connects to the add-on server and displays a list campaigns, etc. that are compatible with your version of BFW - along with a brief description of each and some sample artwork. The most popular campaigns are also available as separate packages within most repositories that carry Wesnoth rpms and debs. After making it easier for users to try new rulesets, is there going to be an automated way to remove them? Hackers can easily delete relevant stuff, but users who aren't technically sophisticated might not be able to do so. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3024 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3024] Inclusion of Alien Worlds to freeciv svn
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #3024 (project freeciv): This would probably be a good time for somebody to come up with an objective set of standards such that any rulesets that get official inclusion work as expected. Beyond meeting these formal standards, i don't think we should reject any submission on [for example] esthetic grounds. Anything we include to freeciv svn, should be kept up to date with code changes. Modpack maintenance responsibility is then at freeciv maintainer team (which of course welcomes any patches, but if nobody else submits patches...) This means we can have only a few (preferably best ones) modpacks included in freeciv proper. We now have second tier of modpacks, those that freeciv maintainers have added to list of modpacks freeciv-modpack utility automatically shows. Those are still maintained by third party authors, but they are sort of recommended modpacks. Then there are those modpacks that we make available for download, or at least list in our wiki. Fourth tier are modpacks that are not part of any systematic list, but you find by luck. Lastly there are modpacks that are not published at all since their author was thinking private use only, but which you can get by asking. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3024 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3024] Inclusion of Alien Worlds to freeciv svn
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?3024 Summary: Inclusion of Alien Worlds to freeciv svn Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Sun 06 Nov 2011 01:33:43 AM EET Category: rulesets Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Privacy: Public Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Discussion Lock: Any Planned Release: ___ Details: I'm opening this ticket for discussion about possible inclusion of Alien World modpack to freeciv svn. It really is about discussion at this point - I'm undecided myself if I rather keep developing it independently from freeciv project. In any case I'm only considering inclusion to svn repository at this point - to be maintained along with other rulesets. It's definitely not yet ready to be part of release tarballs. Pro for AW: It would give the ruleset higher profile - it would be part of freeciv project and not just something one person hopefully maintains - more user trust, artists might be more willing to help Pro for FC: Having drastically different official ruleset is like giving two games instead of one to our end users. I often consider AW as second mode of freeciv. Even experimental ruleset falls under default mode, along with default, civ1 civ2 rulesets. Con(?) for AW: It would be subject to decisions of Freeciv maintainer board, no longer something that I can dictate to directions I have wanted it to. Con for FC: When we start including custom rulesets, where we draw the line? Is AW even best candidate for inclusion? I definitely don't want to use my position as Freeciv maintainer to push my own creation to high profile list if more deserving ones are left out. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?3024 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev