Follow-up Comment #6, patch #3837 (project freeciv):
S2_4: Umh, but before 2.5 city tile always had road, no matter the terrain.
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/patch/?3837
___
Update of patch #3842 (project freeciv):
Status:None = Ready For Test
Assigned to:None = cazfi
Planned Release: = 2.5.0
Follow-up Comment #5, patch #3826 (project freeciv):
Then I noticed how roads and bases are handled differently when new city is
founded. Existing roads remain, but bases are removed unless city owner would
be able to build new such base.
I think you should be removing only those bases (and
URL:
http://gna.org/bugs/?20744
Summary: Recursive wipe_unit() saving drowning units from
calling wipe_unit()
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Fri 19 Apr 2013 11:52:39 AM EEST
Category: general
Follow-up Comment #24, patch #3804 (project freeciv):
In the end I split wipe_unit() refactoring to ticket of its own as it occurred
to me that it's bugfix required to S2_4 too: bug #20744
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #20744 (project freeciv):
- S2_4 version of the patch
(file #17768)
___
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: WipeUnitLists-S2_4.patch Size:8 KB
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #20744 (project freeciv):
try_to_save_unit() doesn't need to take the helpless argument for S2_4, as
this only exists as a base for future extension, but leaving it there should
cause no problem and it may be helpful to have the S2_4 and S2_5 functions be
identical to
Update of patch #3726 (project freeciv):
Assigned to: cazfi = None
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/patch/?3726
___
Message sent
Follow-up Comment #7, patch #3837 (project freeciv):
Then I'm just confused, and this should work for S2_4.
(file #17769)
___
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: S2_4-use-can_attack-foo-functions-more.patch Size:2 KB
Update of patch #3502 (project freeciv):
Status:None = Wont Do
Assigned to:None = cazfi
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
Follow-up Comment #8, patch #3829 (project freeciv):
Now I also know what I failed to see last week - and still do. While road is
added to the list, it's not added to the bitvector. As bitvetor is currently
used only for transmitting information to client side, I assume everything to
work on
URL:
http://gna.org/task/?7678
Summary: Windows packages for 2.4.0-beta2
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Fri 19 Apr 2013 05:26:37 PM EEST
Should Start On: Fri 19 Apr 2013 12:00:00 AM EEST
Should be Finished
URL:
http://gna.org/bugs/?20745
Summary: City size 1, citizen count 2 with concurrent
movement
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Fri 19 Apr 2013 08:58:03 PM EEST
Category: None
Severity: 3
Follow-up Comment #9, patch #3829 (project freeciv):
This is why the road is also self-added to the integrators road_type_list in
packhand.c:handle_rulesets_ready() (as part of the same iteration used to
process hiders): by not forcing self in the bitvector, the implementation is
entirely
Follow-up Comment #6, patch #3826 (project freeciv):
Updated patch adjusts base destruction to not be player-specific (so that
players may build cities on city-compatible bases they could not build
themselves, and keep the base), as well as removing any city-incompatible
roads when founding a
Follow-up Comment #7, patch #3826 (project freeciv):
I don't think there's any actual need for double removal, but otherwise
destroy_base() would need to either be passed boolean parameter telling if
caller is removing base itself, or it would need to be able to deduct the need
itself. Some
Update of bug #20682 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Fixed
Assigned to:None = cazfi
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
Update of patch #3850 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Done
Assigned to:None = cazfi
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
Follow-up Comment #16, bug #18517 (project freeciv):
I just tested this with freeciv trunk built against crosser-0.10.1, and
couldn't reproduce. Maybe gtk+ has been fixed? Version in crosser-0.10.1 is
2.24.14.
Latest gtk+2 bundle for windows has 2.24.10. Our earlier testing indicates
that bug was
Follow-up Comment #1, task #7678 (project freeciv):
bug #18517 is worth following too - it may make sense to start using latest
gtk+ bundle in build environment.
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/task/?7678
URL:
http://gna.org/patch/?3854
Summary: Consider nativity for is_square_threatened()
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: persia
Submitted on: Sat 20 Apr 2013 06:32:27 AM JST
Category: general
Priority: 5 -
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #20587 (project freeciv):
Oops. Found this after posting patch #3854
Although closely related, I'm not sure this ticket is entirely closed by that
patch though: while it does remove the land restriction, it does not include
the deeper analysis that might be useful to
Update of patch #3854 (project freeciv):
Status:None = Ready For Test
Assigned to:None = cazfi
Planned Release: = 2.5.0, 2.6.0
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3854 (project freeciv):
This is clearly an improvement over current code, so this should go in for
S2_5.
I have some vague plans to make it use pf_map to see what units can threaten
autosettler - that would correctly consider units that can move (because they
are
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #3830 (project freeciv):
That said, I'm not sure I understand the specific meaning of
this check in a nativity-based environment if it doesn't mean
that units have a hard time attacking/defending when they are
not native to the target tile.
Took me a while too
Follow-up Comment #5, patch #3830 (project freeciv):
I understand why an attacking unit might get reduced firepower when attacking
a non-native tile. I don't understand why this reduction fails to apply
depending on the defending unit: I would expect it to apply in all cases, as
it ought
URL:
http://gna.org/patch/?3855
Summary: INSTALL gtk3-client section
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Sat 20 Apr 2013 02:52:35 AM EEST
Category: docs
Priority: 5 - Normal
URL:
http://gna.org/patch/?3856
Summary: Add nativity check for find_closest_city()
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: persia
Submitted on: Sat 20 Apr 2013 08:55:07 AM JST
Category: general
Priority: 5 -
URL:
http://gna.org/bugs/?20747
Summary: Units in nested transport considered defensive units
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: persia
Submitted on: Sat 20 Apr 2013 01:48:01 PM JST
Category: general
Severity:
29 matches
Mail list logo
