look at qbix answer just a few posts above to see what could make qbix reject a patch. I guess potential to screw working things up or make dosbox too slow is one of the good reasons to reject stuff.

ih8registrations wrote:

A CVS maintainer that had commit privileges. He would have to have some guidelines for accepting or rejecting patches.

Bribes? 😀

Dominus wrote:

look at qbix answer just a few posts above to see what could make qbix reject a patch. I guess potential to screw working things up or make dosbox too slow is one of the good reasons to reject stuff.

That's right. If they reject a patch there is always a good reason. What's the problem? I have 3 executables in my dosbox folder, with different available features.

All you need is patience. I'm sure that after proper optimisations, all useful patches will be added to official Dosbox.

wd wrote:

That talk is cluttered over a 70-pages thread btw.

Yeah, that was one hell of a cool thread 😀.

JAL

Qbix wrote:

Before you all get angry at wd.

I never get angry at wd. I love him, really. He's as cuddly as my avatar, the grumpy old dude 😀.

JAL

An answer?

to what?
this:

the question would still be what are they?

then you gotta define *they* because that's no sentence structure i'm used to

They being the personal preferences being gone by in deciding what does and doesn't get accepted.

That was already answered above.

Where?

There are no guidelines besides the omnipotence of Qbix/Harekiet.

This and nothing else.
If that doesn't answer your question then this theoretical question must
remain unresolved, but that shouldn't matter as it's a pure theoretical one.

It's not a theoretical question, a theoretical CVS maintainer was used in framing the question. If omnipotence is the answer, there's no point in anyone other than you three in contributing to DOSBox. If that's what you want, fine, but man up and say so, instead of avoiding answering.

Qbix wrote:

Before you all get angry at wd. The decision whether and when to add something is taken most of the time by me.

the 4 colour mode cga stuff ? I think you refer to 16 colour composite stuff. Which is present since a long time.There is an even better version out there. But that is hard to add to dosbox in a way that it is compatible with our scalers and still being fast enough to run at 70 hz and doesn't offer imho enough improvements to justify this work.

With some of the fancier scalers, I would agree that these games would require significant horsepower. Perhaps it should be implemented as its own scaler! Otherwise it should be limited to the basic scaling (integral). By the way, shouldn't these games be running at 60Hz (CGA standard), not 70Hz (VGA standard)?

wd wrote:

No he's talking about those two games which have a non-detectable composite
mode that needs a simple switch and probably some larger amount of changes
to the current composite emulation.

The number of games that can take advantage of it are in theory limited only by the number of games that support CGA in a 4-color mode on an RGB monitor. However, from a practical standpoint, there are more than just a few games that show excellent support for the particular composite technique. The results are extremely impressive to boot. A representative list of games would include:

Archon: The Light and the Dark
Adventure in Serenia
Agent USA
Below the Root
Crossfire
Gamma Force in Pit of a Thousand Screams
F-15 Strike Eagle
Fooblitzky
Gamma Force in Pit of a Thousand Screams
Gettysburg: The Turning Point
I, Damiano
Jumpman
Lane Mastodon vs. the Blubbermen
Mean 18
Microsoft Decathlon
Mickey's Space Adventure
Mindshadow
Murder on the Zinderneuf
Oils Well
Pitstop 2
Roadwar
Sierra's Championship Boxing
Solo Flight
Strip Poker: A Sizzling Game of Chance
Sub Mission
Spy Hunter
Troll's Tale
Ultima II
Ultima III
Ultima IV
Ulysses and the Golden Fleece
Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?
Winnie the Pooh in the Hundred Acre Wood
ZorkQuest: The Crystal of Doom
ZorkQuest: Assault on Egreth Castle

well I was going to post the following before wd posted.

Basicly it is a bit like this:

bugfixes/optimalisations decide for yourself

new features ask Harekiet/Qbix.

there's no point in anyone other than you three in contributing to DOSBox

Huh? Just because something isn't committed to the official sources doesn't
mean it's useless or the work isn't appreciated. Still don't get your point.

wd wrote:

Huh? Just because something isn't committed to the official sources does't mean it's useless or the work isn't appreciated. Still don't get your point.

These are called 'non-reconcilable differences' I think 😀. In short, ih8-whats-his-name wants an official procedure by which patches are included or excluded from DOSBox, with a list of criteria and standards for these patches. Given the organisation of the DOSBox core team however, I think this is perhaps a bit over the top.

What would be handy however, is a list of all major patches/extensions that have been created (and are still maintained, i.e. work with the latest official DOSBox release) and their features, so that people who are looking for features beyond the standard ones can check that list to see if something's already supported. There are many patches out there, and for those who do not keep track of this forum, they can be hard to find. I'm thinking of things like the SVGA patch, demo VGA patch (soon to be incorporated in the official version?), printer support, PS1 audio, Innovation audio, etc.

Another issue is that many peope really do not know how to compile anything, let alone DOSBox with all its dependencies. So for those people, those patches stay out of reach (especially when you need more than one).

JAL

is a list of all major patches/extensions that have been created

Those who want to maintain their patches/think they're useful for other
people use the sf patches page.

I'm thinking of things like the SVGA patch, demo VGA patch (soon to be incorporated in the official version?)

Not possible.

wd wrote:

Those who want to maintain their patches/think they're useful for other people use the sf patches page.

It would be nicer to have this information on the DOSBox home page. But anyway, I know your point of view, and I can appriciate your train of thought.

I'm thinking of things like the SVGA patch, demo VGA patch (soon to be incorporated in the official version?)

Not possible.

I mean its functionality, as present in the 0.73 experimental builds.

JAL

It would be nicer to have this information on the DOSBox home page.

That stuff belongs on the dev resources -> sf page.

as present in the 0.73 experimental builds.

Dunno svga works plain fine in clean builds.

The whatever we want and we're not telling you tact is what the there's no point in anyone else contributing is in response to. People want to contribute but you blow them off, like repeatedly telling them to add it to their own CVS, and don't answer their questions, don't explain why. Your caustic responses do anything but convey appreciation. It tells people to fuck off and go away. What I argued for was the courtesy of a response when people ask why, an explanation of how it's decided in more detail than "omnipotence."