[Freeciv-Dev] [task #7763] Windows packages for 2.3.5

Update of task #7763 (project freeciv): Status:None => Done Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4662] [metaticket] Eliminate nreqs in favour of present="FALSE" requirements in supplied rulesets

URL: Summary: [metaticket] Eliminate nreqs in favour of present="FALSE" requirements in supplied rulesets Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jtn Submitted on: Sun 20 Apr 2014 12:32:50 BST Category:

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4662] [metaticket] Eliminate nreqs in favour of present="FALSE" requirements in supplied rulesets

Update of patch #4662 (project freeciv): Depends on: => patch #4411 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sen

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4662] [metaticket] Eliminate nreqs in favour of present="FALSE" requirements in supplied rulesets

Update of patch #4662 (project freeciv): Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sen

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4458] milesian

Update of patch #4458 (project freeciv): Assigned to:None => mixcoatl ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sen

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21115] [metaticket] Negated requirements ('negated'=TRUE, 'present'=FALSE) do not work reliably

Update of bug #21115 (project freeciv): Depends on: => patch #4451 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sent

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21115] [metaticket] Negated requirements ('negated'=TRUE, 'present'=FALSE) do not work reliably

Update of bug #21115 (project freeciv): Planned Release: => 2.6.0 ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message sent

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4401] README.effects update

Update of patch #4401 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test => In Progress ___ Follow-up Comment #9: > So, with [dependencies of patch #4662] landed, the issues I > described with the AI reliance

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21115] [metaticket] Negated requirements ('negated'=TRUE, 'present'=FALSE) do not work reliably

Follow-up Comment #16, bug #21115 (project freeciv): Recent discussion in patch #4401 highlights that there are still known outstanding issues in the code, not yet raised as separate tickets. ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4662] [metaticket] Eliminate nreqs in favour of present="FALSE" requirements in supplied rulesets

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4662 (project freeciv): Ticket marked as 'Done' even though dependency bug #21115 is not -- this means that trunk might currently be in a bit of a broken state, as some bits of the code are still reliant on the presence of 'nreqs'. This needs resolving for 2.6.0.

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4658] Ai should cache unit information

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4658 (project freeciv): My initial thought (without exploring all potential uses) is that the caching probably should happen on a per-turn basis, rather than at ruleset loading time. move_rate, attack, and defense already are dynamic, CanFortify, CanOccupy, AttFromNon

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4400] Tidy up requirement descriptions

Update of patch #4400 (project freeciv): Status: In Progress => Ready For Test ___ Follow-up Comment #2: * New trunk version is commit candidate. * S2_5 version also included; only reviewed / tested v

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4400] Tidy up requirement descriptions

Additional Item Attachment, patch #4400 (project freeciv): File name: 4400-trunk-output.diff Size:330 KB File name: 4400-S2_5-output.diff Size:305 KB ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4400] Tidy up requirement descriptions

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #4400 (project freeciv): This patch looks great. S2_4 would benefit from it, but it is a lot of work to backport it, and then a lot of translation effort to make a difference. Probably only worth it if there is vast player outcry about the help being subtly wrong. So

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #21115] [metaticket] Negated requirements ('negated'=TRUE, 'present'=FALSE) do not work reliably

Follow-up Comment #17, bug #21115 (project freeciv): I rebased an old WIP branch for this cleanup this weekend, and it seems that vast majority of the issues I had previously identified have been addressed. The only remaining parts in my branch were: 1) aicity:affected_unit_class(), which needs

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3901] Rewrite get_MC callbacks for complex nativity

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #3901 (project freeciv): Updated patch addressing identified issues from review. Overlap moves now have a separate cost function (set to param->move_rate, rather than SINGLE_MOVE to discourage attempting to land in two places in one turn). Overlap moves still consider

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4610] AI won't build sea-only workers

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #4610 (project freeciv): I encountered this patch again this weekend, and while I accepted the argument when it was posted, I'm now a bit confused about the implementation. Is this implementation based on some concept of how different units would be built for where the

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4558] Help generator: generalize unit_type_fulfills_requirement()

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #4558 (project freeciv): This code is readable to me, and seems both sensible and useful in all sorts of ways. I'd rather not see the universals_u in unit_type_fulfills_requirement() named "arg", because I have to think about it in the function call. Perhaps use "univ

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4543] The No_Diplomacy effect prevents contact intelligence

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #4543 (project freeciv): I like the approach of having contact be handled by event. This presumably provides structure by which more complex contact rules may be established (e.g. orbital units (unit class) do not initiate contact when adjacent to preindustrial units (

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #4610] AI won't build sea-only workers

Follow-up Comment #7, patch #4610 (project freeciv): Patch added concept of role unit filter. The single filter included can be used to select land or sea moving (both moving units being suitable for both) units. You probably want to rework the filter for complex nativity, and callers must be cha