I'd like to develop AFS in /trunk/Lobby/
I'd also like ot propose moving folders again within the Lobby folder to seperate lobby clients and lobby servers.
And at some point a Bots folder may be appropriate, as Id like to put up a minimal version of my lobby bot as some sort of java lobby bot sdk.
AFS and Lobby folder organisation
Re: AFS and Lobby folder organisation
I'm not fond of allowing unreleased as of yet private projects in the repository.AF wrote:I'd like to develop AFS in /trunk/Lobby/
Once you have a working version released (with sourcecode) and it is clear that AFS is (getting) better than TASServer or targetting another audience (ie. it is not redundant), then you can ask again.
There's no need for that, not even if there would be two or three servers in SVN. Also I'd first like to get other folder movements and the necessary changes in buildsystem done (ie. the trunk/Engine thing).I'd also like ot propose moving folders again within the Lobby folder to seperate lobby clients and lobby servers.
trunk/Lobby/Bots for bots is good. Same argument applies here as for AFS though, first release, then ask wrt putting it in SVN.And at some point a Bots folder may be appropriate, as Id like to put up a minimal version of my lobby bot as some sort of java lobby bot sdk.
How is it a private project if the whole things opensource from the very start? Its aimed at developers at the moment and that doesnt necessarily mean TASServer replacement even tho that is an eventual outcome. I want AFS to be an open development process from as early as possible, a community effort.I'm not fond of allowing unreleased as of yet private projects in the repository.
The design is very generic, with a commandset of 4/5 commands to implement with all the connection code wrapped up in an existing library, getting it to a point where it is usable would take an hour, and its usage after that is provided by the clients and developers that use it.Once you have a working version released (with sourcecode) and it is clear that AFS is (getting) better than TASServer or targetting another audience (ie. it is not redundant), then you can ask again.
I didnt want to release it if it wasnt going in svn and its nor going in svn unless I release it, creating a logical neverending loop =(trunk/Lobby/Bots for bots is good. Same argument applies here as for AFS though, first release, then ask wrt putting it in SVN.
It may be open source but I can not find the source. (nor can I find binaries, but that doesn't matter much)AF wrote:How is it a private project if the whole things opensource from the very start? Its aimed at developers at the moment and that doesnt necessarily mean TASServer replacement even tho that is an eventual outcome. I want AFS to be an open development process from as early as possible, a community effort.I'm not fond of allowing unreleased as of yet private projects in the repository.
It's your job to break that loop TBH. I can't agree with putting stuff in SVN for which no one but the author has had a chance to see the sourcecode...I didnt want to release it if it wasnt going in svn and its nor going in svn unless I release it, creating a logical neverending loop =(trunk/Lobby/Bots for bots is good. Same argument applies here as for AFS though, first release, then ask wrt putting it in SVN.