Preston Crow wrote: > > >PS-Whats the policy for including new mapsets right now or within > >the stable releases? Mine should prolly be usable some time soon... > > While I have no real say in the matter, it seems that it should be a > no-brainer to include more mapsets in the main distribution. What should > be debated is when they're ready to be linked in to the standard maps. > > For example, if I were to include my maps (which aren't ready by any > means), I would include: > > /preston/README > A description of the maps, explanation that they're not linked in, and > instructions on how to link them in. > /preston/patch > A patch file that will update one of the main maps to link my maps in, > as explained in the README. > > I sure wish the Grey Shield maps were included in that fashion. (Actually, > I wish they were standard--they're better than a good number of the older > maps.) Does anyone know where they are now? This is actually a reasonable idea. I would suggest that manual directions for including/linking in the map may be needed. If several people do this, it is possible that the patches included may conflict with each other, which is why I suggest this. Someone else is taking care of maps as I recall, although with CVS, that isn't need as much. I would suggest that no new maps should probably be linked in to active maps until after 1.0. But there is a question of why include stuff that is not ready yet? The only real reason I could see is if you hope other people will work/finish up the maps (or if they're mostly ready - ie, need some debugging/balance issues).