On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, William Allen Simpson wrote:
But 2.2 will definitely not be readable by 2.1 or 2.0, as it will have
lots of new civ3 terrain and resource definitions.
Even though I understand what you are saying, please be careful saying
things like the above when mentioning certain
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39441
Ulrik Sverdrup wrote:
But, the content of the ticket I linked to is about changing S2_0 to
read 2.1 savegames better. So it is (was?) a bug for 2.0.x, invalid or
not.
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=19044
Then
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39441
Mike Kaufman wrote:
Retrofitting previous versions is pointless I agree.
Indeed, 2.1 doesn't save map.l lines, so 2.0 will exit with error.
I've had my head in the sand for the past year or so I grant, but this was
necessary
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39441
Further about savegame compatibility:
In 2.1 we introduced the $..$ delimiter for secfiles for code blocks.
First it was read-only, but that caused ticket 39442: So I built upon
that in
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39441
Ulrik Sverdrup wrote:
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=19044
Just for information, this ticket is open for 2.0.x:
#19044: 2.0 = 2.1 forward compatibility
No, it should be open for 2.1. Forward means (as the
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39441
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:49:55PM -0700, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The other way, 2.1 = 2.0 would be reverse compatibility. I have no
interest in retrofitting old versions to read newer versions.
hmm. there has been a somewhat
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39441
[wsimpson - So 08. Jul 2007, 09:07:13]:
All the crashers that were listed are fixed, the resolved issues are
completed, and the BUG_URL is done. Time to make release?
What about PR#36441 and PR#36496?
PR#36491 should be
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39441
BTW, there were voices on the forums that we should start shipping
2.0.x with Amplio, as *trident derivates are looking increasingly
outdated. Are there any technical reasons that stops us from doing so?
~Daniel
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39441
Christian Prochaska wrote:
What about PR#36441 and PR#36496?
PR#36491 should be committed, too, IMHO.
Wow, these are ancient; should have been in 2.0.9 -- added to ticket.
And they have patches! I'll check them in later today.
URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39441
Daniel Markstedt wrote:
2.0.x with Amplio, as *trident derivates are looking increasingly
outdated. Are there any technical reasons that stops us from doing so?
My opinion is they should use 2.1.0. Amplio was a major 2.1 driver, and
10 matches
Mail list logo
