Copy & Paste patch, reworked

[Yexo]

Then see if we can get that part of the patch in to trunk

Can you stop using "we" were you mean "somebody"? Unless you think complaining about it is helping.

Oh, let me answer that already so it saves 'you' time trying: it won't get in trunk. It's been said enough times, in this topic, in previous topics and on IRC. It spoils a major part of the game.

[KingNimby]

I assume your objection to the inclusion of copy/paste in trunk is the same one that cropped up in all the other threads, that it lets people be lazy, copy other people's work, stifles creativity etc. It's easily one of my favourite patches and to me seems like an obvious shortfall of TTD. I'm not the only one since it has a lot of support and somebody took the time out to write it in the first place. I've never used it to copy anybody else's layouts and I still spend an enormous amount of time developing my own junctions and the like. I use it because it saves me a lot of time when I need to replicate track sections, such as a long piece of line that needs several similar/identical load balancers installed. Essentially what I'm saying is that it saves me time by letting me quickly copy pieces of track that I would have copied by hand anyway. While it's true that some people might use it to be lazy and just copy the layouts of others and not learn anything, it is just a game. You can't police what the users do with the game according to some unwritten set of rules.

[Rubidium]

To be clear: some developers are against the feature on game play principle, but ALL developers are against this implementation because it adds a significant maintainance burden, but primarily because the patch has never been finished; it's littered with todos about all kinds of stuff. Not to mention the changing of stuff totally unrelated with the patch; it's actually reverting a few things from trunk.

So, until the patch isn't finished, fixed and brought up to par with the coding style guidelines it does not stand a chance. Also the patch has been living in 'the wild' for more than a year where people with (almost) no knowledge stab at it until it compiles and seems to work. This gives me, at least, the strong feeling that no one with proper skills is really interested in the feature.

And please for the sake of this patch, try to update the latest patch that didn't some "trunk reverts" instead of the old one that did do the "trunk reverts", like order_cmd.cpp or the "trunk revert" added in this patch in the docs directory. Furthermore remove any automatically generated file or patch '.orig' files from the diff. It's only going to cause problems for others that want to apply the patch.

Finally: I think I've been repeating myself for the umphteenth time about this patch.

[2007Alain2007]

maintainance burden is all ways going to be with openttd and it will never get easyer for you guys we all know that

But you keep adding and changeing bits every day is there not a better way of picking a patch and trying to get it to run in the game then fix said bugs and carry on like that

to me its just small changes but thats me what do i know

[KingNimby]

Thanks for the thorough answer Rubidium. I didn't realise that there were such severe objections over the way it is coded. I have to admit that while I was trying to make it work I did not understand why the patch was causing alterations to code that appeared to have nothing to do with copy/paste. At least that makes sense now. I'm sorry I let a .orig slip through as well, I thought I had got them all . It's fixed now.

I suppose at this point the patch is essentially dead. Trunk is racing ahead and there's nobody left who has the skill to correctly bring it forward, let alone fix the more fundamental issues that would make it eligible for inclusion. I find that a shame, because I love the functionality it adds.

[2007Alain2007]

this patch just got to big i think

[SirkoZ]

To be clear: some developers are against the feature on game play principle, but ALL developers are against this implementation because it adds a significant maintainance burden, but primarily because the patch has never been finished; it's littered with todos about all kinds of stuff. Not to mention the changing of stuff totally unrelated with the patch; it's actually reverting a few things from trunk.

So, until the patch isn't finished, fixed and brought up to par with the coding style guidelines it does not stand a chance. Also the patch has been living in 'the wild' for more than a year where people with (almost) no knowledge stab at it until it compiles and seems to work. This gives me, at least, the strong feeling that no one with proper skills is really interested in the feature.

And please for the sake of this patch, try to update the latest patch that didn't some "trunk reverts" instead of the old one that did do the "trunk reverts", like order_cmd.cpp or the "trunk revert" added in this patch in the docs directory. Furthermore remove any automatically generated file or patch '.orig' files from the diff. It's only going to cause problems for others that want to apply the patch.

Finally: I think I've been repeating myself for the umphteenth time about this patch.

Thank you indeed, Rubidium, for such a descriptive answer.
I'm glad there is still a chance of this getting into trunk, however small, if of course anyone who knows programming and code-style is willing to whip it into shape.
Any candidates? Eddi?

[SirkoZ]

this patch just got to big i think

Way too messy, not too big. Rubidium wrote it all - please read, because I'm really glad there's still a chance. I myself didn't know it's so messed up...

[Yexo]

Thank you indeed, Rubidium, for such a descriptive answer.
I'm glad there is still a chance of this getting into trunk, however small, if of course anyone who knows programming and code-style is willing to whip it into shape.

Bringing it up to date and fixing all issues isn't the only problem:
]

To be clear: some developers are against the feature on game play principle,

[KingNimby]

So you're saying that even if somebody was able to change/rewrite the patch in such a way that it became worthy for inclusion in trunk, you would still veto it on gameplay grounds? I'd say that's a major stumbling block stopping anybody from making a significant time investment in trying to bring the patch up to date. Why work on it if there's zero chance it's ever going to be eligible for inclusion? Have the devs as a whole thought about making a final decision on whether copy/paste (and not necessarily this implementation, purely the concept) could make it into trunk? If the answer is no, never, then we can forget about the whole thing. If it's yes, it might help attract somebody to the patch who could perform the work required.

For me, copy/paste doesn't actually let you do anything new, it simply speeds up something that has always been possible. You can go here and see pre-made track layouts, then copy them into the game by hand. You can look at the save games of others and do the same. Copy/paste makes this faster but it doesn't let people with no compulsion to learn do anything that they couldn't already do before. I simply don't believe that the patch is going to make ottd's previously highly creative users dumber/lazier and the people that do use it like that were always going to find some way of cutting that corner, copy/paste or not. Also, like I said earlier, I think it's wrong to try and "police" the way that people play the game.

[Alberth]

I'd say that's a major stumbling block stopping anybody from making a significant time investment in trying to bring the patch up to date. Why work on it if there's zero chance it's ever going to be eligible for inclusion?

I would agree on that view

Have the devs as a whole thought about making a final decision on whether copy/paste (and not necessarily this implementation, purely the concept) could make it into trunk? If the answer is no, never, then we can forget about the whole thing. If it's yes, it might help attract somebody to the patch who could perform the work required.

No we have not.
Also, we will not until the patch is ready and good enough for trunk.

The point here is that there are a zillion ideas floating around at the forums, if we have to discuss and decide on each idea before somebody can start with the actual implementation (and then find the implementation is too difficult in most cases), we would never make any progress. As it is, we have work enough already.

However, any opinion about the patch is based on its current form. Look what happened to the in-game downloading of NewGRFs. For years people have asked for it. Every time the developers refused based on respect for the owners of those files. Then Bananas was devised, that made downloading possible, yet respects the rights of the NewGFR authors.
So it is almost never a definitive no, unless it clearly falls outside the boundaries of the game objective, for example adding violence to OpenTTD will never be done.

The same can happen here. In its current form, the patch is not acceptable for some of the developers. The question you need to find the answer to is "How can I change the behavior of the patch such that it meets the goal of the patch, and is acceptable to all developers." Unfortunately, this is usually a non-trivial problem.

For me, copy/paste doesn't actually let you do anything new, it simply speeds up something that has always been possible.

I was thinking of replacing the main window with a very large friendly yellow button with "Win game now". Press it, and voila, you have won the game.
By your reasoning, that would be allowed, since winning is already possible.

Do you think that having such a button instead of being able to lay track/road, buy trains, etc adds to game play and is worth including in the game?

Also, like I said earlier, I think it's wrong to try and "police" the way that people play the game.

We don't police anything, we just think it does not add to the goal of the OpenTTD program and therefore do not include it (in its current form).

If you feel differently, we do not stop you from making a patch, and publishing a patched game in 'our' forums. You are also allowed to make a copy of our sources, redefine the goal of the game, and start your own development group, forums, etc.

[KingNimby]

The point here is that there are a zillion ideas floating around at the forums, if we have to discuss and decide on each idea before somebody can start with the actual implementation (and then find the implementation is too difficult in most cases), we would never make any progress. As it is, we have work enough already.

I respect that this is an issue, but I'm happy that we agree that this is potentially preventing further progress on this patch. It would appear that this is an intractable problem right now and any potential patch developer will simply have to overlook the philosophical roadblocks to trunk inclusion that this patch has.

I was thinking of replacing the main window with a very large friendly yellow button with "Win game now". Press it, and voila, you have won the game.
By your reasoning, that would be allowed, since winning is already possible.

Do you think that having such a button instead of being able to lay track/road, buy trains, etc adds to game play and is worth including in the game?

I was worried that at some point during this discussion I was going to be guilty of using a straw man argument, but this one is a whopper, kudos

They're not even close to being the same thing and we both know it.

If you feel differently, we do not stop you from making a patch, and publishing a patched game in 'our' forums. You are also allowed to make a copy of our sources, redefine the goal of the game, and start your own development group, forums, etc.

If I had the coding skill, I certainly would take this route. It is, in fact, the route that every developer of this patch has taken, which is to say that they have created a patch and carried it alongside trunk despite the fact that it may never become more than just a patch. It's basically "back to square one," not that I think there's another option right now. There isn't.

[Yexo]

So you're saying that even if somebody was able to change/rewrite the patch in such a way that it became worthy for inclusion in trunk, you would still veto it on gameplay grounds?

Veto not, but in it's current form I'm strongly against it.

There might be options for a copy/paste patch that only copies town buildings/roads in the scenario editor. That'd be ok with me. To keep it simple the save/load of templates may have to be left out.

I'd say that's a major stumbling block stopping anybody from making a significant time investment in trying to bring the patch up to date. Why work on it if there's zero chance it's ever going to be eligible for inclusion? Have the devs as a whole thought about making a final decision on whether copy/paste (and not necessarily this implementation, purely the concept) could make it into trunk?

No, and like Alberth said, it's impossible to discuss every idea.

Also, like I said earlier, I think it's wrong to try and "police" the way that people play the game.

So we should also add a full-fledged stock market to OpenTTD? After all, some people want that.

[Alberth]

I was thinking of replacing the main window with a very large friendly yellow button with "Win game now". Press it, and voila, you have won the game.
By your reasoning, that would be allowed, since winning is already possible.

Do you think that having such a button instead of being able to lay track/road, buy trains, etc adds to game play and is worth including in the game?

I was worried that at some point during this discussion I was going to be guilty of using a straw man argument, but this one is a whopper, kudos

They're not even close to being the same thing and we both know it.

I am not sure it is that much different. In theory, you could copy/paste a whole world into the current game, effectively giving you a finished game.

However, my point was, some patches are not acceptable, no matter how useful they may be, ie some 'policing' is needed to preserve the nature of the OpenTTD game. You just have the bad luck of being on the wrong side of the line at this moment.

[KingNimby]

So we should also add a full-fledged stock market to OpenTTD? After all, some people want that.

I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. When I talk about "policing" something, I don't mean vetting/rejecting/approving patch concepts based on their merits, support or development status, I'm talking about shutting down patches because of the perception that they could be abused in some way that diminishes the playing experience. For example, people can collaborate in the game's online mode, sharing the responsibility for a company, but that same responsibility can be used to grief the other players by destroying what they have created. There's no way to stop it, since we can't tell beforehand which players are malicious, but we can't take away the multiplayer component of the game out of fear of said abuse. You can reject a patch for a lot of legitimate reasons, I just don't think fear of incorrect usage (when there is an obvious correct usage) should be one of them.

Not that it makes much difference at the moment, what with the patch not even having an active developer, but what if copy/paste became a cheat function? In my mind it lies in the same grey realm of acceptability as build while paused. What if it was accessed in the same way and threw up the cheat flag when it was turned on?

[Bilbo]

Even if you would be able to copy also stations, trains and orders, how would copying entire world help you? The industries and cities are at different places in different worlds, so most of your stations will either end up away from desired industry or even at unbuildable places (inside ocean) - you'll end up with just wasting lot of money for minimal profit, if any at all.

While copy & paste patch can help with repetitive constructions, if is far away from hypothetical yellow button with "win the game" text on it.

[SirkoZ]

To be clear: some developers are against the feature on game play principle,

What of it, Yexo? So you don't like it. There's interest though. There really is. Now the mess has to be cleaned up.

[acabin]

My English is not good(maybe very bad ), and I didn't read your replies, so I don't know weather this problem has been identified:
When click the paste buttom, there is no preview to railways, and this may important to check the position.

[belugas]

Dear mister KingNimby: Although I do appreciate the tenacity with which you are battling to get copy and paste in trunk, I would like to mention to you that there are quite a few devs who specifically rejected this patch.

Whatever the reasons, don't forget that WE are responsible to keep trunk sane, WE are responsible to fix bugs lurking in the code after the inclusion, WE are doing it for fun and do not feel happy to be forced on doing something we do not like, nor that we feel is NOT right.

For your information: Yexo, Albert and myself are against its inclusion. I think that you would need to have the opinion of frosch, peter1138, michi_cc, glx and Smatz to have unanimity. Would that matter? I doubt very much. We know each other's opinion a bit, si I really doubt it would change anytning at all.

So please... stop the debate there, it's pointless. HO... no... I lied... The more we talk against it, the less we are willing to change our mind... So no.. indeed, keep talking... We'll be really pissed off very soon (I am already, thus the intervention during my vacations)

[KingNimby]

I'm sorry if it came across that I was "battling" for trunk inclusion. That wasn't my aim at all. Rubidium already made it clear (and I absolutely agree with him) that the patch is in no shape to go anywhere near trunk right now. I was just curious to see if there was any way to get around the objections some of the devs had about the patch on gameplay grounds, perhaps by making it a "cheat" function etc.

While it was said earlier that you hadn't given a "final" decision about the idea of the patch (and that you never could because of the time constraints and implications for handling patches in the future, which I understand) it seems clear enough from your reply and those of the other devs that the majority are against it. With that being the case, this patch and the discussion about it may very well end right here.