MantisBT - Zandronum
View Issue Details
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0000367Zandronum[All Projects] Suggestionpublic2011-04-04 12:252018-09-30 20:07
ReporterGez 
Assigned ToTorr Samaho 
PrioritynormalSeveritytrivialReproducibilityN/A
StatusclosedResolutionfixed 
PlatformOSOS Version
Product Version 
Target VersionFixed in Version1.0 
Summary0000367: Backport extended nodes
DescriptionI'm suggesting an out-of-order backport to add support for extended nodes (XNOD, XGLN, XGL2 signatures) to Skulltag for the next official version.

Why? Because they are already supported by non-ZDoom ports such as Eternity and PrBoom+ and are used by some high-profile projects, notably Mechadon's Vela Pax and Gazebo's Sunder. Having Skulltag adopt them as soon as possible would be a big step for cross-compatibility.

On the technical side, it shouldn't be intrusive in anyway, the code is already there to read compressed nodes, this is the same just skipping the decompression step.
Steps To Reproduce
Additional InformationThis corresponds to ZDoom revision 2287. You may also want to port r2285 while you're at it, though it isn't necessary.
TagsNo tags attached.
Relationships
Attached Files
Issue History
Date ModifiedUsernameFieldChange
2011-04-04 12:25GezNew Issue
2011-04-06 01:13Torr SamahoNote Added: 0001295
2011-04-06 01:14Torr SamahoAssigned To => Torr Samaho
2011-04-06 01:14Torr SamahoStatusnew => feedback
2011-04-06 10:59GezNote Added: 0001298
2011-04-06 10:59GezStatusfeedback => assigned
2011-04-09 14:46Torr SamahoNote Added: 0001316
2011-04-09 14:46Torr SamahoStatusassigned => feedback
2011-04-15 11:27GezNote Added: 0001372
2011-04-15 11:27GezStatusfeedback => assigned
2011-04-16 17:56Torr SamahoNote Added: 0001374
2011-04-16 17:56Torr SamahoStatusassigned => resolved
2011-04-16 17:56Torr SamahoFixed in Version => 1.0
2011-04-16 17:56Torr SamahoResolutionopen => fixed
2018-09-30 20:07Blzut3Statusresolved => closed

Notes
(0001295)
Torr Samaho   
2011-04-06 01:13   
I agree, Cross-compatibility is important and backported the changes from revision 2287. I also had a look at the changes from revision 2285. To port them without conflicts I'd also need to backport 2263. Do you know if this could have any undesired side effects?
(0001298)
Gez   
2011-04-06 10:59   
Other than fixing script problems in CIF3 and taking up more memory for some data structures since shorts are expanded to words, there shouldn't be side effects as far as I know.
(0001316)
Torr Samaho   
2011-04-09 14:46   
I noticed that 2285 is also intertwined with 2151. Since you said 2285 is not necessary, it's probably better to not backport it for now.
(0001372)
Gez   
2011-04-15 11:27   
I guess this can be marked as resolved now?
(0001374)
Torr Samaho   
2011-04-16 17:56   
Yes :).