Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-08-23 Thread Robert Brockway
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017, Kevin Zheng wrote: As much as possible I've been automating the world building. I hope it offers different game play to keep people interested. I think this could offer something to players who want to try something new. Is the new world compatible with the standard

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-08-23 Thread Ruben Safir
On 06/23/2017 07:56 PM, Rick Tanner wrote: > On 6/23/17 10:02 AM, Matthew Giassa wrote: >> >> Also, has anyone tested how much bandwidth, disk space, etc; the latest >> stable release uses under a test load (i.e. a few users/players)? > > Disk space needed for (trunk only) source content: >

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-26 Thread Rick Tanner
On 6/23/17 10:02 AM, Matthew Giassa wrote: > > Finally, who maintains the package currently available via `apt` on > Ubuntu/Debian systems? The Ubuntu page notes that it is Kari Pahula [1]. > Is this person a CF dev? *IF* it is someone else, I am not aware of it. To my knowledge Kari Pahula has

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-25 Thread Mark Wedel
On 06/25/2017 08:18 AM, Matthew Giassa wrote: My guess is with meteor, let's assume 10 projectiles in rapid succession, each generating a 15 tile radius (approx) effect, that's about 10 * 700 = 7000 objects. How does the bandwidth shoot up to 10MB/s though? What is the minimal unit/"tick" of

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-25 Thread Matthew Giassa
My guess is with meteor, let's assume 10 projectiles in rapid succession, each generating a 15 tile radius (approx) effect, that's about 10 * 700 = 7000 objects. How does the bandwidth shoot up to 10MB/s though? What is the minimal unit/"tick" of time the server uses? Finally, does the server

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-24 Thread Mark Wedel
On 06/23/2017 04:56 PM, Rick Tanner wrote: On 6/23/17 10:02 AM, Matthew Giassa wrote: Also, has anyone tested how much bandwidth, disk space, etc; the latest stable release uses under a test load (i.e. a few users/players)? Disk space needed for (trunk only) source content: arch = 124M

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-23 Thread Ruben Safir
everytime someone has done something like that, they have regretted it. FWIW, our class was considering writing a nueral network for crossfire On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:01:20PM -0700, Mark Wedel wrote: > On 06/22/2017 09:06 PM, Kevin Zheng wrote: > >Hi there, > > > >It has now been 3 years

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-23 Thread Rick Tanner
On 6/23/17 10:02 AM, Matthew Giassa wrote: > > Also, has anyone tested how much bandwidth, disk space, etc; the latest > stable release uses under a test load (i.e. a few users/players)? Disk space needed for (trunk only) source content: arch = 124M server = 39M maps = 549M After compiling

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-23 Thread David Hurst
Hi, I'm currently using a 1.71 build of the gtk client on Windows 10. It works well with only two issues. 1. The Meta server doesn't work 2. The default numpad key bindings don't work and have to be bound manually. I'm happy to help bug test a gtk client (and the Java client) for this release.

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-23 Thread Matthew Giassa
Would it be worth migrating the project to GitHub, along with a copy of the HTML, assets, etc; for the real-time.com CF wiki? Issues wouldn't be migrated, but a more modern VCS could be employed. Also, has anyone tested how much bandwidth, disk space, etc; the latest stable release uses under a

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-23 Thread Kevin Zheng
On 06/23/2017 05:37, Rick Tanner wrote: > Would/could/will the planned release include an .exe version of the GTK > client for Windows? It's been a while since I've tried to build the GTK client on Windows, but I'll remember to give it a shot. -- Kevin Zheng kevinz5...@gmail.com |

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-23 Thread Kevin Zheng
On 06/22/2017 22:30, Robert Brockway wrote: > About 18 months ago I sparked a discussion about an expanded Crossfire > world I was developing. Well I went away and did that but wasn't > willing to host it on a VPS (Linode, Digital Ocean) as the size of the > world made this quite expensive. So I

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-22 Thread Robert Brockway
Sounds exciting. About 18 months ago I sparked a discussion about an expanded Crossfire world I was developing. Well I went away and did that but wasn't willing to host it on a VPS (Linode, Digital Ocean) as the size of the world made this quite expensive. So I decided to wait until until

Re: [crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-22 Thread Mark Wedel
On 06/22/2017 09:06 PM, Kevin Zheng wrote: Hi there, It has now been 3 years since the last release. Since then we've accumulated a decent amount of fixes and improvements. To make it easier on packagers, and so that more people might benefit from these changes, I propose getting the ball

[crossfire] Release proposal

2017-06-22 Thread Kevin Zheng
Hi there, It has now been 3 years since the last release. Since then we've accumulated a decent amount of fixes and improvements. To make it easier on packagers, and so that more people might benefit from these changes, I propose getting the ball rolling on cutting a new release. If there are

[crossfire] Crossfire release

2012-02-13 Thread Mark Wedel
It's been quite a while since there has been a crossfire release, so it seems about time for one. So I'm thinking that in a couple weeks time, packing up what is there as a release and putting it up on sourceforge. There are a few reasons for this announcement: - If there is code

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire release?

2011-01-11 Thread Mark Wedel
On 11/14/10 09:19 PM, Mark Wedel wrote: Been a little more than 6 months since last official release, and I was thinking that trying to get one out before end of the year might be nice. Thoughts/comments? Any list of bugs or other things that must be fixed before a release is

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire release?

2010-11-22 Thread Nicolas Weeger
Client too old may be reasonable - at some point, the older clients really will not work. It isn't feasible of course to test every client with every version of the server, and vice versa. The problem of enforcing versions gets tricky - one does not want to force version 1.60 client

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire release?

2010-11-22 Thread Mark Wedel
On 11/22/10 10:19 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: Client too old may be reasonable - at some point, the older clients really will not work. It isn't feasible of course to test every client with every version of the server, and vice versa. The problem of enforcing versions gets tricky - one

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire release?

2010-11-20 Thread Mark Wedel
On 11/20/10 01:04 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: Hello. Been a little more than 6 months since last official release, and I was thinking that trying to get one out before end of the year might be nice. Thoughts/comments? Any list of bugs or other things that must be fixed before a

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire release?

2010-11-17 Thread Rick Tanner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/16/10 10:24 PM, Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote: I don't really know of any serious stability reports out there, though some users seem to be confused by the account / character setup dialogs. I've been working on the walk though for the new account

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire release?

2010-11-17 Thread Mark Wedel
On 11/16/10 08:24 PM, Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote: snip IMO, it is time to ditch gtk-v2.glade as the default. It is becoming a not so uncommon event for a new user to come on IRC and have fits getting the important window panels to show up (inventory in particular). I've had one disappear off

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire release?

2010-11-16 Thread Kevin R. Bulgrien
Been a little more than 6 months since last official release, and I was thinking that trying to get one out before end of the year might be nice. Thoughts/comments? 1.50.0 is broken. One cannot create a new character due to a .glade file bug. A release is needed. Technically, a 1.50.1

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-04-15 Thread Mark Wedel
On 04/14/10 12:29 PM, Rick Tanner wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/31/10 2:01 AM, Mark Wedel wrote: Just a heads up - I'm targeting weekend of April 10-11 to make a release, since I should have time then (certainly won't this weekend).. To recap or confirm..

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-04-15 Thread Kevin Bulgrien
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:03:04 -0700 Mark Wedel mwe...@sonic.net wrote: On 04/14/10 12:29 PM, Rick Tanner wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/31/10 2:01 AM, Mark Wedel wrote: Just a heads up - I'm targeting weekend of April 10-11 to make a release, since I

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-04-15 Thread Mark Wedel
On 04/15/10 08:47 PM, Kevin Bulgrien wrote: Without countering Mark, I have build scripts that go all the way down to making RPMs... I'll support you in making a client release compatible with branch if you really want that. I can see part of the point of having branch for stability,

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-04-14 Thread Rick Tanner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 3/31/10 2:01 AM, Mark Wedel wrote: Just a heads up - I'm targeting weekend of April 10-11 to make a release, since I should have time then (certainly won't this weekend).. To recap or confirm.. This will or would be called 1.5 and based on

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-03-31 Thread Mark Wedel
Just a heads up - I'm targeting weekend of April 10-11 to make a release, since I should have time then (certainly won't this weekend).. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-03-24 Thread Nicolas Weeger
Yes, in the past, usually for a week or two. Of course, there is nothing that prevents one from making a branch from something other than the latest version. So if tomorrow, someone made a lot of big changes in which you think 'hmmm - I'd like more testing before and don't want them in

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-03-20 Thread Nicolas Weeger
Hello. Yes, that is the ideal case, especially if there is lots of active development. If there isn't, it is simpler to just freeze the trunk gate for anything but bug fixes needed for the 1.50 release. That way quality can get better, without the overhead of a branch, potentially

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-03-20 Thread Mark Wedel
On 03/20/10 12:55 AM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: Hello. Yes, that is the ideal case, especially if there is lots of active development. If there isn't, it is simpler to just freeze the trunk gate for anything but bug fixes needed for the 1.50 release. That way quality can get better,

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-03-15 Thread Nicolas Weeger
Hello. Call the release 1.50, to note it diverges a bit from the 1.11 release (isn't a minor update) but at the same time isn't what we consider 2.0 Fine by me. Target release for end of March or so. Are there any must fix bugs to be dealt with? I hope to have the new account login

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-03-15 Thread Mark Wedel
On 03/15/10 12:41 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: snip Target release for end of March or so. Are there any must fix bugs to be dealt with? I hope to have the new account login stuff done soon, but I've been saying that for months :( The recent object_free2() and object_free_drop_inventory()

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-03-13 Thread Mark Wedel
On 02/28/10 12:50 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote: Hello. What about we just decide to do a release of trunk end of march? Whatever it is called, 1.5, 2.0, 1.9, and such :) Then let's kill branch, and work on trunk. Does that sound ok? Just to follow up on this some more and other ideas:

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-03-03 Thread Mark Wedel
On 03/ 1/10 05:32 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: I haven't been very active with things these days, but I'd be in agreement with a release being made. My one reservation is that of those options, I wouldn't want it numbered 2.0 since I don't think enough has happened to justify that yet. Making a

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-03-01 Thread Kevin Bulgrien
Hello. What about we just decide to do a release of trunk end of march? Whatever it is called, 1.5, 2.0, 1.9, and such :) Then let's kill branch, and work on trunk. Does that sound ok? Sure - though perhaps my recent inactivity lowers the weight of the vote. It has gotten to the

Re: [crossfire] Release?

2010-03-01 Thread Alex Schultz
I haven't been very active with things these days, but I'd be in agreement with a release being made. My one reservation is that of those options, I wouldn't want it numbered 2.0 since I don't think enough has happened to justify that yet. Alex Schultz On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 21:50:50 +0100 Nicolas

[crossfire] Release?

2010-02-28 Thread Nicolas Weeger
Hello. What about we just decide to do a release of trunk end of march? Whatever it is called, 1.5, 2.0, 1.9, and such :) Then let's kill branch, and work on trunk. Does that sound ok? Nicolas -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Mon p'tit coin du web] signature.asc Description: This is a

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2009-01-13 Thread Rick Tanner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lalo Martins wrote: All right... with the help of crossfire traffic and svn, I compiled a list of what's in the trunk and branch. http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/trunkbranchchangebreakdown I've added about 10 new points of difference to the

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2009-01-13 Thread Lalo Martins
quoth Rick Tanner as of Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:55:12 -0600: Lalo Martins wrote: http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/trunkbranchchangebreakdown I've added about 10 new points of difference to the wiki page. During the next couple of days, I will go through all the maps again and post the any

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2009-01-09 Thread Mark Wedel
Lalo Martins wrote: quoth Mark Wedel as of Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:08:38 -0800: Lalo Martins wrote: As far as I've seen, the only change that breaks character compatibility is the combat rebalance. So until/unless we hear from the code leadership, let's assume the rebalance won't be in the

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2009-01-08 Thread Lalo Martins
All right... with the help of crossfire traffic and svn, I compiled a list of what's in the trunk and branch. http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/trunkbranchchangebreakdown Comments welcome. As far as I've seen, the only change that breaks character compatibility is the combat rebalance. So

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2009-01-08 Thread Lalo Martins
quoth Mark Wedel as of Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:08:38 -0800: Lalo Martins wrote: As far as I've seen, the only change that breaks character compatibility is the combat rebalance. So until/unless we hear from the code leadership, let's assume the rebalance won't be in the release. As far as

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2009-01-06 Thread Rick Tanner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lalo Martins wrote: - As suggested earlier on this thread, current trunk will become further 1.x releases. I remind you, that's for content; the decision whether or not to do the same wrt server and clients will be left to the people who

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2009-01-06 Thread Lalo Martins
quoth Rick Tanner as of Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:58:11 -0600: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lalo Martins wrote: - As suggested earlier on this thread, current trunk will become further 1.x releases. I remind you, that's for content; the decision whether or not to do the

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2009-01-06 Thread Lalo Martins
quoth Lalo Martins as of Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:22:52 +: Can you make a list, either here or the wiki, of known points where 1.12 would break backwards compatibility? I don't mind required that content is updated in step, but breaking character compatibility I'd prefer not to (last time that

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2009-01-06 Thread Lalo Martins
quoth Rick Tanner as of Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:35:13 -0600: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lalo Martins wrote: Content changes that require trunk code are another matter. I'd like to have a list of those if someone who knows about it has the time to compile it; snip One

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2008-12-22 Thread Klaus Elsbernd
Hello, To throw my too cents: I'm a long time user (since the pre-Mark-area; only debuged the code years ago). So I would like to speak for those users, which are waiting of a new relase since months. Before making drastical changes to development (c++ implementation...) I would like to see a

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2008-12-21 Thread Juha Jäykkä
(Maybe there should be a vote on rolling back / not merging the rebalance changes. Personally I love them. But I've seen some people claim they're not finished enough for release.) Given that we don't have anyone wishing to coordinate content and maps and make them coherent and fun, I

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2008-12-21 Thread Lalo Martins
quoth Nicolas Weeger as of Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:22:50 +0100: Given that we don't have anyone wishing to coordinate content and maps and make them coherent and fun, I have no intention to do massive changes to the code, so that question is probably rhetoric :) (unless someone else feels like

Re: [crossfire] Release 1.12

2008-12-21 Thread Nicolas Weeger
Given that we don't have anyone wishing to coordinate content and maps and make them coherent and fun, I have no intention to do massive changes to the code, so that question is probably rhetoric :) (unless someone else feels like doing such work, obviously) That's not true... I thought

[crossfire] Release 1.12

2008-12-19 Thread Lalo Martins
I'd like to propose that, before we set off on major rewrites, we officially give up on the previous 2.0 effort, and release what's currently on trunk as 1.12. (Which probably means either merge the branch, or abandon it and just use trunk...) There are major improvements on trunk, notably an

[crossfire] Release announcement URLs broken?

2008-02-01 Thread Kevin R. Bulgrien
The ftp sites listed in the announcement don't seem to work. Crossfire is available on the following ftp sites Primary:      ftp://ftp.sourceforge.net/pub/sourceforge/crossfire Secondary:      ftp://ftp.real-time.com/pub/games/crossfire The SF link... who knows. I didn't try that hard and

Re: [crossfire] Release of 1.11 in a week or two

2007-09-26 Thread Nicolas Weeger
There is a difference of something being highly desirable and something being strictly required. I can think of some number of cases where people may not use the metaserver2 for various reasons, and thus don't really want to bother downloading what may be extra libraries. *shrug* We're

Re: [crossfire] Release of 1.11 in a week or two

2007-09-23 Thread Nicolas Weeger
It shouldn't be. It's possible that a few things or other changes were outside of #ifdefs. For both client server, having curl shouldn't be a requirement. What's the point of metaserver2, then? :) I think curl is needed, so newer clients use newer servers. Having pthread, at least for

Re: [crossfire] Release of 1.11 in a week or two

2007-09-23 Thread Mark Wedel
Nicolas Weeger wrote: It shouldn't be. It's possible that a few things or other changes were outside of #ifdefs. For both client server, having curl shouldn't be a requirement. What's the point of metaserver2, then? :) I think curl is needed, so newer clients use newer servers.

[crossfire] Release of 1.11 in a week or two

2007-09-18 Thread Mark Wedel
I'll likely be packing up a release of 1.11 of server/client in a week or two. If you have fixes that you haven't committed yet, please do so. Also, if there are any bugs that you see as critical that need to be fixed before the release, please let me know. There's a fair number of

Re: [crossfire] Release of 1.11 in a week or two

2007-09-18 Thread Kevin R. Bulgrien
I'll likely be packing up a release of 1.11 of server/client in a week or two. If you have fixes that you haven't committed yet, please do so. Also, if there are any bugs that you see as critical that need to be fixed before the release, please let me know. There's a fair number

Re: [crossfire] Release of 1.11 in a week or two

2007-09-18 Thread Olivier Huet
: [crossfire] Release of 1.11 in a week or two Le mardi 18 septembre 2007, Mark Wedel a écrit : I'll likely be packing up a release of 1.11 of server/client in a week or two. If you have fixes that you haven't committed yet, please do so. Stopper thing: Windows support. With the new metaserver

Re: [crossfire] Release of 1.11 in a week or two

2007-09-18 Thread Mark Wedel
Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote: I'll likely be packing up a release of 1.11 of server/client in a week or two. If you have fixes that you haven't committed yet, please do so. Also, if there are any bugs that you see as critical that need to be fixed before the release, please let me know.

Re: [crossfire] Release of 1.11 in a week or two

2007-09-18 Thread Mark Wedel
Olivier Huet wrote: Hello, Something like a month ago, I did try some minor modifications on the windows gtk1 client : - make it compile on vs2005 (because I didn't have vs 6 installed anymore on my current pc) - activate back the sdl support (like it is in on gtk2 client, it's only a

Re: [crossfire] Release schedule/notes

2007-03-30 Thread Mark Wedel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other thoughts: I'd say there is nothing prevent some micro releases of some components between now and then, if a change warrants it. For example, map and archetype changes are quite quick to do and contain perhaps some of the more noticable changes to the

Re: [crossfire] Release schedule: was maps/tags/1.10/

2007-03-08 Thread Mark Wedel
Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote: In terms of more frequent 'build' releases, I'm not sure how that really differs from a normal release. Perhaps a technicality, but having a distinction would make it easier to release something even if there was a big bug unfixed, or it might be top of tree so

Re: [crossfire] Release schedule: was maps/tags/1.10/

2007-03-07 Thread Kevin R. Bulgrien
Some things could perhaps be scripted more than they are done now. For example, I could certainly see a top level script along the lines of 'make 1.11 release', which goes, does the svn copy (to the right name), and perhaps even collects that archetype, maps, and sounds. Some of

Re: [crossfire] Release schedule: was maps/tags/1.10/

2007-03-06 Thread Mark Wedel
Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote: I also think that less than every 3 months is too long a gap - just looking at the client, there were lots of things changed since the last release, such that if there were 3 releases in that time period, each would still have enough changes to be

Re: [crossfire] Release of 1.10 soon.

2007-01-01 Thread Nicolas Weeger (Laposte)
Le vendredi 29 décembre 2006 23:08, Mark Wedel a écrit : I'd like to make a 1.10 release of crossfire sometime soon. So if you have bugs you're currently fixing, getting those fixes in now would be good. If you are aware of any unreported bugs, please report them now. If you need time

Re: [crossfire] Release of 1.10 soon.

2006-12-30 Thread Andrew Fuchs
On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 00:26 +0100, Yann Chachkoff wrote: I do. I'd like to have enough time to solve at least the following bugs before the next release: - #1612838 : Problem with item_power code; - #1539120 : Talisman of Evocation grants wrong skill; - #1528525 : Sometimes bad initial

[crossfire] Release of 1.10 soon.

2006-12-29 Thread Mark Wedel
I'd like to make a 1.10 release of crossfire sometime soon. So if you have bugs you're currently fixing, getting those fixes in now would be good. If you are aware of any unreported bugs, please report them now. If you need time to fix some bugs, please also let me know.

Re: [crossfire] Release of 1.10 soon.

2006-12-29 Thread Yann Chachkoff
I'd like to make a 1.10 release of crossfire sometime soon. So if you have bugs you're currently fixing, getting those fixes in now would be good. Hrem, I don't think people keep fixes for ages in their local hard disks before submitting them :). If you are aware of any unreported bugs,

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-15 Thread Mark Wedel
Just a note - I've put a copy of this document, with a few minor changes, on the wiki: http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/crossfire_release_cycle ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-10 Thread Nicolas Weeger (Laposte)
I'm not sure about the other systems out there - once can spend a lot of time looking over all the documentation, etc. AS with our last discussion, I'm most inclined to stick with CVS since we know what it does and doesn't have any real major shortcomings (it works right now). I'm in no

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-10 Thread Tchize
Also, about restructurations of code, svn unlike cvs does not 'forget' the history of a file when it's moved. I use cvs a lot for work and dureing refactoring of our code (which happens from time to time) we already lost versions of some files because they were deleted / restored / deleted and

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-09 Thread Tchize
svn does branching and tagging, and according to this faq (http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#merge-using-tags) it does it pretty well. basically svn does this to handle branching and merging copy trunk - myBranch copy myBranch - myBranchMerged modify myBranch at will copy the diff between

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-08 Thread Nicolas Weeger (Laposte)
Hello. I globally agree, a few points: - Client and server releases will be done at same time, with matching version numbers. - Exception is micro releases, where it may be only the client or only the server released. This supposes client will evolve too. Experience

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-08 Thread Mark Wedel
Nicolas Weeger (Laposte) wrote: Hello. I globally agree, a few points: - Client and server releases will be done at same time, with matching version numbers. - Exception is micro releases, where it may be only the client or only the server released. This supposes

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-08 Thread Lalo Martins
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:44:01 -0700, Mark Wedel wrote: Alex Schultz wrote: - Should we switch to SVN? Switching repositories at same time as switching what the head branch means would make the most sense. I agree that when switching what the head branch means makes the most sense,

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-08 Thread Alex Schultz
Mark Wedel wrote: As far as going to something else, I think it would have to be vastly better - sourceforge provides a nice free environment - it keeps things very simple - it is associated with a group, not a single person. Something that is not free or associated with one person

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-08 Thread Alex Schultz
Lalo Martins wrote: snip svn criticisms Ahh yes, those are the sorts of SVN issues I've heard about, though I'm not experienced with SVN myself. I believe the idea is to try some proper revision control system like bzr (there's free hosting at launchpad.net; you can host your own using

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-08 Thread Mark Wedel
Some of SVN big advantages appears to be able to work offline (keeps copy of data you checked out around so you can do diffs without needing connection, as well as ungets). Some of the other features may not make as big a difference to us - ability to use different connection methods (that

[crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-07 Thread Mark Wedel
Per the recent discussion on code reorganization and what goes in what release, this document is an attempt to gather the points raised and make it into a formal document that can be included in the code or put on the wiki. This document does not attempt to justify or explain why different things

Re: [crossfire] Crossfire Release Cycles/Methodology

2006-08-07 Thread Alex Schultz
Mark Wedel wrote: Per the recent discussion on code reorganization and what goes in what release, this document is an attempt to gather the points raised and make it into a formal document that can be included in the code or put on the wiki. snipped the large list Those rules seem to make