[crossfire] Metaserver info, was Re: Crossfire+/Crossfire2 Versioning and Metaserver

[Alex Schultz]

mwedel at sonic.net wrote:
> <snip>
The proposed fields you mentioned look good to me. One other quick
thought, is perhaps the "codebase" fields should have a flag or other
standard way of representing the case of something being mostly of a
"codebase" but with a minor patch or two.

>  Another question related to this is whether we should re-do the
> metaserver connection method all together - in shorter term, the servers
> could use both new and old methods to report data, but then at some
> point, they only use new method.  There were discussions in the past
> about this - I bring it up now, because if we add all these new fields,
> it may make it hard to keep things compatible.
And another thought, is if it would be worthwhile for a redone
metaserver connection method to actually be a distributed metaserver as
was once thought about a long while back. I'm not sure that would be
good, but if the connection method were to be redone, it would be worth
thinking about those sorts of things.

Alex