<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40408 >

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - So 27. Jul 2008, 17:10:31]:
> 
> Depending on the order of packets being correct is, in general, very
> bad.  Each packet should be independent.

I agree on that so it is probably most sensible to let the apropiate
function processing the city_info packet check for the change of the
owner of the city instead of the tile. I also deleted a comment
suggesting that tile owner should be the same as city owner, which
clearly didn't seem to be the case without my previous patch.

Greetings,
Nico
diff -Nur -X.diff_ignore trunk/client/packhand.c changed/client/packhand.c
--- trunk/client/packhand.c	2008-07-27 21:46:43.000000000 +0200
+++ changed/client/packhand.c	2008-08-03 21:28:58.000000000 +0200
@@ -509,8 +509,7 @@
       pcity->original = powner;
 
       tile_set_owner(pcenter, powner);
-    } else if (tile_owner(ptile) != powner) {
-      /* assumes the tile properly reflects city_owner() */
+    } else if (city_owner(pcity) != powner) {
       client_remove_city(pcity);
       pcity = NULL;
       city_has_changed_owner = TRUE;
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to