Re: [glob2-devel] Thats it, we need a plan

[Bradley Arsenault]

On 3/21/06, Martin Voelkle <address@hidden> wrote:
> If you do it without trying, try to avoid doing it.
> Maybe you should ask yourself this question: what does 1.0 mean for you?
>
> IMHO, it's about getting the quality of the game to a point where we
> can say it's stable.
> That implies pretty much bug squashing and reworking the map editor. I
> know these are completely fuzzy goals, but face it: the map editor is
> unusable. It's not about fixing it like this or like that, it's about
> RE-doing its UI.

Fuzzy goals do nothing. Just saying "fix the map editor and the game
is perfect" does nothing. Once has to describe whats wrong, and the
preferred solution, as a concensus. Thats what i'm trying to do.


>
> You seem to have good ideas, but from my POV, they don't seem to bring
> us any closer to a 1.0 release. That shouldn't stop you, there is no
> harm in doing new stuff. Branch, and merge when it's done. But I
> really think that wishlist items should be out of a 1.0 roadmap.

Branch and merge is annoying and stupid idea. Merging is a slow
process, and especially painfull when someone changed HEAD while you
where branching and ambuiguities arrive. In my opponion, all changes
should go in HEAD. It saves time and effort, and it allows more than
one person to contribute to a new area of code.


>
> This is what sucks with CVS: branching is not as easy as it could be.
> You can't keep track of changes in HEAD when you are working on a
> branch. However, merging code is usually not as complicated as people
> think it is.

I have tried to merge code before, its not pretty. Branching isn't
worth it in any way just to solve some usability issues and add a few
menus here and there.


>
> Kieran posted a very comprehensive roadmap:
> > * Finish all open projects (random map maker (donkyhotay, gizmo), Nicowar 
> > (GeniXPro), > editing units in map editor (nct, needs more options like 
> > strength for say powerful globs, > or health if the campaign requires say 
> > and injured King)
> > * No one may make CVS commits that contain new features
> > * Thourohly test globulation and report all bugs (and gdb output) at the 
> > bug tracker
> > * Find and eliminate desync bug
> > * Fix all (or most) bugs at bug tracker, hopefully clear it complelty 
> > (close old ones even if > they havn't been fixed, and if they still happen, 
> > they will be revived)
> > * Release 1.0
>
> This boils down to:
> * don't add new stuff to HEAD
> * finish HEAD stuff
> * squash bugs
> * release

Boiling down isn't a good idea, I believe having a grand plan will
suite this project, and many others, much better. If you want to make
a plan (which i certainly do), you have to be specific, very specific.
Everyone knows whats getting implemented, all of the details of what
your trying to achieve are laid out, and achieving it becomes faster.



>
> It's unfortunate that open projects must be finished before releasing.
> This is due to the fact that they have been done on the HEAD branch.
> Had we avoided that, we would not be in that position today. I think
> it would be worth to change the source control system (that might
> imply ditching savannah), so people can work on their enhancements
> without holding back the HEAD branch.

That is opposite of good logic. Merging is annoying and can lead to
ambuigities quickly, as well as duplicated effort, etc.. Ditching
savannah is also a bad idea, if anything, we should ditch savannah CVS
and go for Savannah SVN, as SVN is much, much better than CVS, and
savannah has that.



>
> Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> glob2-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/glob2-devel
>