The long release cycle is unintentional. Your opinion of the size of the change is irrelevant. The change-cost in diffs would be enormous by any standard, most especially that of anyone who has already used ioquake3 to make a game. Of course the comments would not change any functionality, but that doesn't matter when the glob of diff would waste the time of anyone working on a project today.
My feeling on this is that a game developer's ease-of-use must outweigh that of someone who merely repackages our vomitus. On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Dominic Fandrey <kamik...@bsdforen.de> wrote: > This is a side note. > > On 24/08/2011 11:24, Zachary wrote: >> ... does not interfere with our SOP which is to not make sweeping changes. > > Due to your long release cycle changes between ioq3 versions are > always sweeping. > > That's why I am here, keeping track and releasing SVN snapshots to > FreeBSD. > > Code documentation is not a functionally sweeping change (I dare say > it's not a functional change at all). > > It doesn't have an impact on compatibility. And it shouldn't be too > difficult to migrate code changes when all that has changed is the > documentation in front of a function. > > As a port/package maintainer for FreeBSD I am confident that complete > doxygen-style code doc would make my life a lot easier in the long run. > > -- > A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? > _______________________________________________ ioquake3 mailing list ioquake3@lists.ioquake.org http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
