On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Michael Burschik <Michael.Burschik@gmx.de> wrote:
Pedro Rodrigues wrote:

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Michael Burschik <Michael.Burschik@gmx.de <mailto:Michael.Burschik@gmx.de>> wrote:

   Stian Grenborgen wrote:
   > Some of the changes I would like for a 0.9.0-release:
   > - Unit attack animations.
   > - Add support for skins.
   > - Add skins for the simple dialogs (text, confirmation dialogs etc).
   > - Minor AI improvements.
   > - Other minor changes...

   I'm not sure I agree with that road map. I think all the items listed
   (with the possible exception of unit animations) are low-hanging fruit
   that could be added in an 0.8.x release. Since the AI code as well as
   the networking code are completely separate from the UI code, I don't
   think it would be difficult to work on larger changes in the trunk in
   parallel. This is particularly true as I have been doing most of
   the UI
   work but will not be doing the main work for the AI rewrite.

I agree with you here.

Besides, the 0.8 has already gotten a fresh coat of paint, in the form of new graphics, and a ruleset for flexibility and user tinkering.

Other aspects of the game have been neglected, and i think they should be addressed sooner rather than later.


Pedro Rodrigues

So what is your position here? From your earlier mail, I got the impression that you did not think the 0.7.x branch was a good idea. Do you think we should branch now, later, or not at all?

 Sorry, should have been more clear.

 The 0.7.x branch was a necessity, since the changes to implement the ruleset broke the trunk quite a bit.

 However, like i said, such move has collateral effects, like a lot more work to implement and test the fixes; which will (did) result in non ported fixes, and so taking a lot of the advantages of the branch with it.

 My position is, branch when and if its necessary; right now we havent even decided which changes will be the focus of the next release, let alone even coming to an aggreement if a branch would be necessary.

 Which leads me to the second part, where i agree with your roadmap (not Stians), and where i also tend to agree that such changes would fit nicely in the 0.8 timeline, but should not the the focus of the next release, for the reasons i already gave above on my other message.

 Hope i made my opinion clearer now.

Pedro Rodrigues