On 4 January 2014 20:12, Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 January 2014 16:15, Jacob Nevins > <0jacobnk.fc...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> Marko Lindqvist writes: >>> Follow-up Comment #1, bug #21428 (project freeciv): >>> >>> [...] I've started designing "Ruleset object deprecation" -feature, >>> maybe making its debut in 3.0. >> >> I've been thinking about this sort of thing too, so I'd be interested in >> your ideas. >> >> For instance, if advances in rulesets ever allowed us to merge the >> Aqueduct buildings in civ2civ3 into a smaller set, we'd have a problem >> with savegames. >> (That's "Aqueduct", "Aqueduct, near river", and "Aqueduct, near lake".) > > In principle, as long as ruleset author wants to maintain > compatibility with savegames from version that had some now removed > object, such as Aqueduct buildings, he needs to have something like: > > [deprecations] > buildings = { "type", "action", "value" > "Aqueduct, near lake", "Discard" > "Aqueduct, near river", "Convert", "Aqueduct" > }
..and if you want to split old Aqueduct to civ2civ3 style Aqueduct implementation: [deprecations] buildings = { "type", "action", "value" "Aqueduct", "Convert", "Aqueduct" ; Highest priority, keep any Aqueduct fullfilling updated reqs as Aqueduct "Aqueduct", "Convert", "Aqueduct, near river" "Aqueduct", "Convert", "Aqueduct, near lake" "Aqueduct", "ForceConvert", "Aqueduct" ; Ruleset author wonders if he should have "Aqueduct", "Discard" here instead } - ML _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev