Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Do you want to help out with Freeciv development? Then check out this forum.
cazfi
Elite
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Post by cazfi »

nef wrote:Snippets? Granted that fcdb Lua is substantial but who knows about it, who uses it (LT?) I would suggest that the two versions of hut enter code, plus replacements for listenv() and _freeciv_state_dump() are non trivial.
I used word "snippet" as an opposite of providing a patch that could be applied. Sorry about the confusion.
cazfi
Elite
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Post by cazfi »

During the last 12 months, I've made 1046 commits ( https://www.openhub.net/p/freeciv/contributors/summary ). Now, if average handling time is increased by just one minute, that makes almost 20 hours a year.
nef
Elite
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Post by nef »

cazfi wrote:
nef wrote:A much faster (and less ambitious) release cycle may have other merits as well.
It doesn't help that development of the future version is fun (more people do that), trying to get the corner cases and other details right for the version to be released is hard and not so fun (seems like nobody but I participates in that).
Yes indeed. I don`t have an answer for dealing with the overwhelming desire for shiny new features at the expense of getting what`s already there to actually work. I personally ALWAYS go for the latter. In the long run I think the only way for the project to survive is to impose some SERIOUS discipline, but just how you might go about that is not entirely obvious.
So if one works on the code; "developer". If someone works on other assets; "contributor".
Works for me. "maintainer" also. Rulesets ARE a programming language but they are in the same category as Lua, artwork, etc.. The key difference is that these can all be supplied in real time. (And this is why I use different terms.)
nef wrote:I would suggest that the two versions of hut enter code, plus replacements for listenv() and _freeciv_state_dump() are non trivial.
Those are meant to be included in the distro as they are? Didn't see the ticket, so assumed them to be still be more in the state of "I use this personally, not ready to be considered for inclusion."
There was a point in your earlier 'heap' of issues that I didn`t respond to: "The civ1 tickets I recently filled were about things you wrote years ago." My objective is to supply material that can be used by the community. As to whether this is, or is not, included in any distro is, for me, quite incidental. Developers and maintainers are, of course, more than welcome to use it as they please, but for me it is not essential. The material stands as is and does not need to be in a maintenance release. (3.x is a slightly different matter on account of other ruleset changes.) Now, of course, having said that I would think that inclusion is obvious desiderata.
nef wrote:"spent time on wrong thing in doing it". Are you referring to where it was submitted, or what was submitted?
You were the person saying that implementing the detailed combat stats message should have been spent on working on lua side. It was developed by someone who sent his first (and still only) patch.
Sorry, I misread the entire paragraph and got it horribly wrong. So to be clear on the actual reading I am not in any way trying to criticise the content of any ticket, or of anyone making a submission. The issue as I see it is the process.
During the last 12 months, I've made 1046 commits
This is ALSO a worry. In light of various other comments on this, I am of the view that this is not sustainable. It may be time to consider just how many 'shiny new features' are on the go.
cazfi
Elite
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Post by cazfi »

cazfi wrote:But maybe we could run a limited trial of posting about some new features in development to the forums, to see if people would comment them more in here. Like that I manually do that about the tickets I open myself (not making promises for anybody else) for next couple of weeks. Maybe under "Contribution" section? (should create a new section for this if it's continued after the trial, but I don't want to create it just for the trial and then either deleted with all the content or left there as a ghost)
I've done this for several weeks now. The amount of work has not been insignificant, so one would expect some real benefits in return. Also, the trial has shown that having discussion in two places does cause confusion/stupid mistakes because of the added complexity. Several times I've pushed commit in without remembering to check both places for comments. No real damage done, yet, as in no case there has been comments in the forums side.

The benefits? One or two comments in total, it seems.
Ignatus
Elite
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 12:05 pm
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia
Contact:

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Post by Ignatus »

As noticed here, switching production to Palace when you don't have one in any city removes the waste completely in CivII (likely, we don't have production target in valid Output_Waste_Pct requirements yet?).
cazfi
Elite
Posts: 2615
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Correct the rulesets civ1 and civ2

Post by cazfi »

How we could get clean status out of the civ1/civ2 compatibility issues listed in this thread? It's not feasible to repetedly (at least once per major freeciv version) the whole thread and check each item if they actually are still open (as nothing ever gets closed in this thread - unlike tickets on the tracker).

No promises, but maybe during 3.0.6 cycle there will be time to make another iteration of these issues, to see what would be feasible to fix with freeciv-3.0 datafile formats.
Post Reply