[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3837] Unify UCF_ATT*NON_NATIVE and relevant type flags

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #3837 (project freeciv): Patch attached for S2_3. The pf_tools functions are not adjusted, as the nature of the flags in question don't have much meaning for UMT_LAND units (which restriction is imposed by pft_fill_parameter()). For S2_4, I'm much less certain of the

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3804] Enabling restricted air transport

Follow-up Comment #23, patch #3804 (project freeciv): Updated functional patches to use try_to_save_unit() instead of unit_can_be_saved(). Once applied, this ticket should be closed, without the unit patch. (file #17765, file #17766) ___ A

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3830] Change shore bombardment model to use nativity rather than UMT_*

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3830 (project freeciv): Updated patch attached restoring original behaviour. The sea unit in harbor case gets adjusted anyway because of BadCityDefender (but, yes, this shouldn't be conflated). The ground unit defending against air unit case made fp=2 ground units we

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3826] Allow bases on city tiles

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #3826 (project freeciv): The attached patch should address all comments, and applies against trunk. Thanks for pointing out how roads/bases are removed when terrain is changed. For some reason, in the initial testing, I wasn't successful in restricting bases in cities

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3829] Allow compatible roads

Follow-up Comment #7, patch #3829 (project freeciv): Ah, good point. Perhaps rather than adding roads to the integrators list at parse time, it ought just set the bitvector (redundantly setting it causes no issue, and checking that it is set likely usually wastes cycles). Once the iterates bitve

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3829] Allow compatible roads

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #3829 (project freeciv): > Further, the identical road is always first in the integrators > list, so that continuation on the same road is checked first > when calculating move cost (which is expected to be the most > common case, and for fast roads, the lowest cost Fo

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3829] Allow compatible roads

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #3829 (project freeciv): > am I blind Yes, I am. I assumed it to work that way, yet I somehow missed the line where it did it. > regardless of the notation in the ruleset. Oh, but if ruleset *does* have road type itself (redundantly) listed, it will be added twice to

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3829] Allow compatible roads

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #3829 (project freeciv): Err, rather, the code is just confusing: suggestions for comments to avoid confusing future readers welcome. Rulesets add compatible roads to the integrates vector. load_ruleset_terrain(): Adds road being loaded to the (server-side) integr

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3852] Lua 5.2.2

URL: Summary: Lua 5.2.2 Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Fri 19 Apr 2013 02:09:55 AM EEST Category: general Priority: 5 - Normal Status: Read

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3313] Nets to experimental ruleset

Update of patch #3313 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test => In Progress Planned Release: 2.5.0 => ___ Reply to this item at:

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3851] Remove extra files from gui-gtk-3.0 theme directory

URL: Summary: Remove extra files from gui-gtk-3.0 theme directory Project: Freeciv Submitted by: cazfi Submitted on: Fri 19 Apr 2013 01:15:01 AM EEST Category: client-gtk-3.0 Pr

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] UTYF_BOMBARDER and nativity (was: patch #3830)

Marko Lindqvist wrote: > Short answer: It was probably implemented with some specific unit in mind > to begin with, getting some of the details right more by coincidence than > correct design, and it has been subject to some bitrot. Heh. That makes it easier :) > On 18 April 2013 23:42, Emm

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3417] Configure check for Qt version

Update of patch #3417 (project freeciv): Category: client-qt => bootstrap Status: Ready For Test => None Planned Release: 2.5.0 =>

Re: [Freeciv-Dev] UTYF_BOMBARDER and nativity (was: patch #3830)

Short answer: It was probably implemented with some specific unit in mind to begin with, getting some of the details right more by coincidence than correct design, and it has been subject to some bitrot. On 18 April 2013 23:42, Emmet Hikory wrote: > Jacob Nevins wrote: > > (Since I wasn't sure:

[Freeciv-Dev] UTYF_BOMBARDER and nativity (was: patch #3830)

Jacob Nevins wrote: > (Since I wasn't sure: this is referring to normal attack that the comments > call "bombardment", not the technical meaning of "bombard" that UTYF_BOMBARDER > units do. That has its own hardcoded restrictions on terrain type, but fixing > that should be the subject of a separat

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20542] in unit_virtual_destroy() [unit.c::1881]: assertion '!unit_transported(punit)' failed

Update of bug #20542 (project freeciv): Status:None => Ready For Test ___ Follow-up Comment #5: > I think that it is necessary to explicitly clear transported_by > after unit_transport_unload(

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20714] "Turn done" button not sensitive after failed capability check with another server

Update of bug #20714 (project freeciv): Category:None => general Planned Release: => 2.5.0, 2.6.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #1: I assume this to be

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #19474] max_players cleanup

Update of bug #19474 (project freeciv): Category:None => general Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => cazfi Open/Closed:

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20690] maxplayers setting does not prevent midgame player /create

Update of bug #20690 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test => Fixed Assigned to:None => cazfi Open/Closed:Open => Closed _

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3692] Reduce SHIELD_WEIGHTING

Update of patch #3692 (project freeciv): Status: In Progress => Ready For Test ___ Follow-up Comment #4: Here is the patch I've been using a couple of months now. I've tested mainly with the modified