Re: [Rails-devel] Load/Save games.

[brett l. <wak...@gm...>]

On 7/1/06, Erik Vos <eri...@hc...> wrote:
>
> > >From the beginning, I've said that 1.0 is simply working hotseat play
> > of 1830, which is what we've currently got.  Beyond that, it's just an
> > arbitrary number to tell us that we've hit our first major goal.
> >
> > I'm not really invested in any particular versioning scheme. If
> > there's one you prefer, I'm willing to consider it.
>
> I'm of the school that starts with 0.1 and reserves 1.0 for something
> that is pretty final, but in this case we will never have a really
> finished product (if only because new games keep being published)
> so the assignment of 1.0 is arbitrary anyway. My preference would
> have been to give 1.0 to a version that at least includes Routes
> (and all that) and better Help. But I don't really mind much about
> starting at 1.0.
>
> I would propose to make a distinction between major upgrades (1.1)
> and minor changes (1.0.1), the latter for instance applying to a new
> version in which Alessandro's issue has been fixed (payout for shares in
> IPO).
>

I agree.


> > > - Implementation of the Route concept and all features that need it:
> > > tile laying validation, revenue calculation, effect of tokens).
> > >
> > > - Help (still very rudimentary).
> > >
> > > - UI improvements.
> > > I expect most user comments will relate to the UI.
> > > And there are still glitches (the Game Status has started
> > flickering again
> > > in certain cases. I know it is caused by something I did recently,
> > > but I don't remember what that 'something' is....  Old age,
> > I suppose).
> > >
> > > - Client/server operation & Internet playability
> > > (I think the latter is more complex than the former,
> > > because authentication and other safety measures come into view).
> > >
> >
> > This is going to be a big task even if we leave out the security
> > aspect.  I'm hoping we can find at least one more person to actively
> > to help out before we tackle this.
> >
> > > - Implementing other games.
> > > For me, this would be the most interesting thing to work on,
> > > and I can hardly wait to start implementing all games I
> > have (quite a lot).
> > > But I think that finalizing the base code for 1830 with all the
> > > above extra features is more urgent now.
> > >
> >
> > If this is the most interesting to work on, then let's do this.  I
> > agree that these other features are important, and we'll deal with
> > them eventually. However, being that it's just you and me working on
> > this project, we are free to pursue the features that we're most
> > interested in.
> >
> > Being that few people have expressed more than passing interest, we
> > are the only "customers" that we really need to worry about pleasing
> > at this point.
> >
> > Let's just go ahead and start working on adding the next game.  Is
> > there one you had in mind?  I'm leaning towards 1870.  There's only a
> > handful of minor rules differences, so it shouldn't be a huge effort
> > now that we've got much of the basic infrastructure built.
>
> Well, the first requests already have arrived: Undo and 18EU
> (one of my favourite games too).
>
> I'll think about it. Perhaps we can follow a two-track approach
> (pun intended): gradually adding game features, most of which should
> not take to much work, and starting to work (or at least think about)
> basic aids like Undo (which I consider highest priority indeed),
> which will need a lot more work (or so I expect).
>

Sounds good.  We've more or less been following this kind of approach
anyway, being that you and I have almost always been working on
separate sections of the code.

---Brett.