Tweet
Hi,
Well, i suggest using both possibilities:
For dead apolyton code, i'd say it should be removed from the code.
Dead code of CTP2 Source Project should only be removed, if it gets archieved somehow and a poll for removal resulted in a majority vote for removal.
The reason is: apolyton code is always reproducable by the unmodified source package. However code/modifications made of the projects coders is not reproducable by the source package, and tends to vanish (e.g. look for the ALL packages released on March).
Unless there is no version control system (VCS) used, i suggest this, though i don't like dead code, either.
Well, thats also a major question regarding the linux port and merging the changes back into the main line, because these defines would be nested with other system programming stuff.
I posted a vote for it on #ifdef ACTIVISION_ORIGINAL for that.
Yes, i also see the need of an official vcs. I prefer subversion for certain improvements (atomic commits, efficient binary file handling, possibility to use it through proxies, apache2 modules -> use with ssl, file renames, just to name a few), though CVS has been named only so far because its mature and the most popular so far.
Ciao
Holger
Originally posted by Lui2
1) What about unused functions, methods or classes? Shall they commented out or removed from the actual further developed code to reduce complexity?
1) What about unused functions, methods or classes? Shall they commented out or removed from the actual further developed code to reduce complexity?
For dead apolyton code, i'd say it should be removed from the code.
Dead code of CTP2 Source Project should only be removed, if it gets archieved somehow and a poll for removal resulted in a majority vote for removal.
The reason is: apolyton code is always reproducable by the unmodified source package. However code/modifications made of the projects coders is not reproducable by the source package, and tends to vanish (e.g. look for the ALL packages released on March).
Unless there is no version control system (VCS) used, i suggest this, though i don't like dead code, either.
Originally posted by Lui2
2) I'm not sure about the ACTIVISION_ORIGINAL thing, that will be used now, to indicate the changes. As more and more changes are made to the code, this clutters and blows up the source and it is harder to look through the code and understand and/or change him.
2) I'm not sure about the ACTIVISION_ORIGINAL thing, that will be used now, to indicate the changes. As more and more changes are made to the code, this clutters and blows up the source and it is harder to look through the code and understand and/or change him.
I posted a vote for it on #ifdef ACTIVISION_ORIGINAL for that.
Originally posted by Lui2
It would be much better to have a kind of routine to make versions of the different source files.
It would be much better to have a kind of routine to make versions of the different source files.
Ciao
Holger
Comment