http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40365 >
Can we get a fix for 2.1 that uses an optional capability?
-jason
On 7/19/08, Daniel Markstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40365 >
>
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:25:41 +0900, Madeline Book
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40365 >
>>
>> Actually I don't like the way the tier field is obtained
>> at the client side. It is brittle in that it assumes that
>> terrains are sent in the same order as the server reads
>> them from the ruleset. In other words, the protocol is
>> not stateless, and this could be annoying later. (Though
>> the potential for causing trouble of a bad tier field
>> value on the client side is rather minor.)
>>
>> For S2_1 then, this drawback would be acceptable in order
>> to not have to change packet formats, but for S2_2+ the
>> tier field should be sent in PACKET_RULESET_RESOURCE, to
>> remove the tier calculation from the client and keep it
>> "dumb".
>>
>> So I will re-work the S2_2/trunk version to make it more
>> robust in this manner.
>>
>> Are there any objections to having the S2_1 version committed
>> (depends on #40364) so that resource conversion behaves the
>> same as it did in 2.0/civ2? Also, no problems with splitting
>> the grassland "resources" resource into "animal resources"
>> and "plant resources"?
>>
>> Or we could just leave S2_1 as is and have these resource
>> conversion fixes/features for S2_2 only.
>>
>
> I would vote for the latter. My standpoint is to not introduce
> gameplay-altering changes between minor versions - for a number of reasons.
>
> Let's get 2.2 out the door asap instead. :)
>
> ~Daniel
>
>
>
> ___
> Freeciv-dev mailing list
> Freeciv-dev@gna.org
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
>
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
