Follow-up Comment #14, bug #21115 (project freeciv): > Hm, I'm not wild about potentially disallowing rulesets on > stable branches.
True, that would be quite blatantly against datafile format freeze. log_error() (limited to one client popup even if there's multiple negated reqs) sounds sensible - in most cases it just makes ruleset author to fix the ruleset (should be clearly instructed in the message) > (I suppose autogames with rulesets defined each way would be > one way to get a clue...) Just to make sure we don't do duplicate work: have you done any work to convert our rulesets? If not, I'll create patch for that (not to be committed yet, obviously, but to be used in testing). > There's a weak argument which says that since the syntax on > 2.5 and 2.6 will be different (negated=TRUE vs present=FALSE) It's quite perfect counter-argument to the main argument for using negated = TRUE as default; that it will save ruleset authors from updating requirements when 2.6 comes out. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://gna.org/bugs/?21115> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev