My commit message wasn't too clear, but bug #21240 affects checks if Size_Unlimit is [b]already[/b] enabled. If it is, there's no need (= value) for either Size_Unlimit or Size_Adj effect (don't build Size_Adj buildings when already have unlimited size) There's no similar checks for existing Size_Adj that is not boolean but integer effect, so further additions to the value by new effects are valueable even if max city size is already > 0. ;-) Also, as Size_Adj is not boolean but integer, effects with negative Size_Adj value were already assigned sensible value (by multiplying by the Size_Adj value).
The actual change in the Size_Unlimit check is that existing negative value is not considered one already making city size unlimited. The other half of the patch is that negative value (potentially disabling unlimited size) of the effect [b]being evaluated[/b] is considered negative thing.
So current explanation in NEWS is quite completely wrong, but I have no suggestions how to explain this in end-user understandable way. --Cazfi (talk) 18:57, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, I totally misread the code. Thanks for checking. I'll try to come up with some rewording (perhaps vaguer) before release. -- JTN (talk) 09:54, November 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I've had another go. -- JTN (talk) 01:52, November 30, 2013 (UTC)