Hello, I just thought a bit about this topic again. We're at the start of a new unstable tree and the bars to get in new code are low - why not also for campaigns? My idea would be to freely include anything which is rather complete, not braindead and maintained (using new terrain letter should be sufficient sign right now). But those inclusions are not permanent. As we progress to a new stable release the bars are put higher and higher. Campaigns which are not well maintained and e.g. unplayable for more then one release go out again. Once we feel that we're getting close to a new stable, the actual evaluation will occur. Now we have the history of how well the campaign was maintained during the unstable phase and probably some feedback on them. Having lots of campaigns is a high maintainance burden? Yes and no. If we switch them in and out without lots of discussion there's not so much of it. If a campaign is stable and playable at the point where we reach a new stable version it's safe. A stable version will by design not be changed in a way which makes the campaign unplayable. If it's not kept up to date for the changes of the next unstable tree - out it goes.
Comments? Bye David _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
