Follow-up Comment #10, bug #20577 (project freeciv):
This "submit" is clearly an error, I fixed it in my working copy.
The effect is that the cities submitting are not randomly chosen, as intended,
but, after the first one, picked in the sequence order the iteration
provides.
So the game is playable as it is.
I will submit the correction together with potential future corrections or for
this change aalone, if anyone urges me to.
I doubt if the capstr change is really worth it.
The patch is on an already old version of the quickly changing trunk, probably
the whole patch will need extensive rework for the version it will finally be
merged to.
(The trouble I had upgrading to r22446 was nearly more than the time it took
to write the code. (I'm working on a separate modpack.))
The change is downward compatible in that a missing parameter just works out
as if 0 was given, for the "classic" style.
Old versions will silently ignore this option.
So as I see it, a new capsrting will only harass any modpack developers, being
forced to do replacements in many files, untimely, and, without any benefit
for the final standard users.
I am more concerned about the synchronizing issue. An observer would not see a
new palace nor any new GameLoss units until the next turn.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/bugs/?20577>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
