[crossfire] 2.0 release, was Re: Code restructuring

[Yann Chachkoff]

Le vendredi 21 juillet 2006 20:15, Andrew Fuchs a écrit :
> What I'm inferring, and my op pinions:
>
> Summary:
>
> While 2.0 should be a significant release, the majority opinion is
> that it should not take years.  This makes it difficult to implement
> what everyone wants, etc.
>
True.

> I think 2.0 should be the point at which most issues that we have
> known about, but haven't fixed, should be fixed.  
I'd get furthermore by saying that the last 1.x should be the point where most 
issues should be solved. And then, we can start making massive changes 
leading to the 2.0 version.

> Additionally, the 
> game should be made easier to use (more graphical interfaces on the
> client side instead of typing in commands constantly),
>
Yep - some proposals for the ergonomy of the client would be more than 
welcome.

> Gaining developers:
> <snip>
Agree on all this, although gathering more devs is probably not the most 
important point ATM.

>
> Strengthening the community:
>
> On the community side, we need to encourage player interaction, both
> in and out of the game.  One way to boost in game interaction would be
> bolstering the player economy.
>
I think that, before entering into such details, we should ask ourselves what 
is fun in the game and what isn't. And more important, as players what they 
find fun, and what they don't.
I am also doubtful that changing game mechanisms is the top issue for a 
stronger community - rather, that's making the game attractive and fun, by 
proposing events in and around them. Many MMORPGs feature special events 
around their games (contests, one-time special quests, etc). I think that 
should be investigated for Crossfire.

> However, that will probably not be done in time for cf2.0.  
>
Indeed. But that's probably a good time to start thinking about that part, and 
try to produce a list of what should be done.

> For the community out of game, make it easier to find resources like the 
> forums, and the wiki.  Additionally, make 
> it easier to join irc channels, possibly by putting a java applet
> somewhere.  
>
Good idea. Probably make the Forum and Wiki more visible on the front page 
would also help.

> Another thing that could be done to aid the community, 
> both in-game and outside of the game, would be to setup a method to
> connect to servers, just for the purpose of chatting with people who
> are playing (oldsocketmode uses food iirc).  
>
Agree.

> Another topic of communication between players, would be the inter-server 
> chat discussed a while ago. 
>
Yep, although that's a little more complex issue to solve. Maybe bridges with 
the IRC could solve the issue.

> My opinion on release numbers:
>
> Once we have more developers and enough are willing to volunteer, it
> may be a good idea to appoint some people to maintain the stable
> branches.
>
Maybe. Note that I don't think we should maintain several stable branches 
concurrently - only the last release made. I doubt we'd really need specific 
maintainers in such a scheme.

> Micro releases: bug fixes, and addition of small features
> Minor releases: Features involving significant changes
> Major releases: Huge changes in game play, major overhauls, milestones
> in development
>
I mostly agree with this. Just for the record, I think micro releases probably 
wont require any CVS branching. I'd put "small features" as "minor release" 
ones, though - else, we're taking the risk of a slide where most changes 
become considered as "micro release" ones to make them happen faster.

> Finally, i just want to note that our next release could be 1.10.0
> instead of 2.0 if we need more time for cf2.0.
>
Quite probably. I think we should first fix all the remaining problems, 
release that as 1.10, and then work on that strong code basis to get a 2.0.