Follow-up Comment #1, patch #1907 (project freeciv):
Do you intend to use the modern-day US state flag, the 'Green Mountain Boys'
flag, or one of the historical US state flag variants?
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #1907 (project freeciv):
The Grean Mountains Boys flag; that seems to be the one that was used by the
Vermont Republic.
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/patch/?1907
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #1925 (project freeciv):
Since Freeciv's source language is English, I suggest calling these nations
whatever is the generally accepted term in English. That'll make it easier
for translators, too.
___
Reply to
URL:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16642
Summary: Saving can be very long
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: pepeto
Submitted on: lundi 06.09.2010 à 07:01
Category: general
Severity: 3 - Normal
URL:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16643
Summary: AI trireme stop moving?
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: pepeto
Submitted on: lundi 06.09.2010 à 07:05
Category: ai
Severity: 2 - Minor
Priority: 3 -
Update of bug #16644 (project freeciv):
Priority: 1 - Later = 5 - Normal
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16644
___
Message posté
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #16644 (project freeciv):
Bug added at revision 16822 (bug #14944). It removes the test _is not from a
unit only fog of war save file_. Another thing looks strange, the test
assuring game.fogofwar really exists has disappear...
Update of bug #16644 (project freeciv):
Status:None = Ready For Test
___
Follow-up Comment #2:
Fix attached that reestablish the old behaviour and allow to load the file
correctly. However,
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #16644 (project freeciv):
Real patch, not including the patch for bug #16642 attached.
(file #10200)
___
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: trunk_load_private_map2.diff Size:1 KB
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #16613 (project freeciv):
New fixes attached that fix a bug in map_claim_ownership_full(), and one in
loading cities from savegames.
Test status:
* bug #16613: S2_2(OK), trunk(OK)
* bug #16592: S2_2(OK), trunk (OK with bug #16642)
* bug #14993: S2_2(cannot load),
Additional Item Attachment, patch #1902 (project freeciv):
File name: apache.ruleset Size:1 KB
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/patch/?1902
___
Message sent
URL:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16648
Summary: Memory leak with
ai_data_phase_init()/ai_data_phase_done()
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: pepeto
Submitted on: lundi 06.09.2010 à 15:58
Category: general
Severity:
Update of bug #16645 (project freeciv):
Status:None = Ready For Test
Assigned to:None = pepeto
___
Additional Item Attachment:
File name:
Update of bug #16648 (project freeciv):
Release: trunk = trunk, S2_2
Planned Release: 2.3.0 = 2.3.0, 2.2.4
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of bug #16648 (project freeciv):
Planned Release: 2.3.0 = 2.3.0, 2.2.4
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16648
___
Message posté
URL:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16650
Summary: Fix S2_2 server memory issues reported valgrind
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: pepeto
Submitted on: lundi 06.09.2010 à 16:34
Category: general
Severity: 3 - Normal
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #16625 (project freeciv):
There were still some oddities like if a player observer was sending a
message to a player, it was sending strange messages.
Changed the behaviour like:
* -{dest} message is sent to the sender connection.
* {sender} message is sent to the
Update of bug #16410 (project freeciv):
Status: Fixed = Wont Fix
___
Follow-up Comment #10:
It's impossible for the moment to implement this. The default ruleset must be
loaded at server
Update of bug #16629 (project freeciv):
Status: In Progress = Fixed
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #16413 (project freeciv):
If you look into the directory where the patch was rejected, i'll find the
file with the correct modifications and a .rejected and .orig files.
The .orig is the original file before the patch process took over it, and
the .rejected containts
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #16385 (project freeciv):
I follow you in your brilliant analysis. However, I am not sure of what do
you propose as rules changes.
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16385
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #16385 (project freeciv):
Related question: An empty bases (not protected by units) could be captured
by enemy units?
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16385
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #1929 (project freeciv):
Add Tervingian (or Visigothic) nationset.
(file #10211)
___
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: tervingian.ruleset Size:1 KB
Additional Item Attachment, patch #1929 (project freeciv):
File name: tervingian.ruleset Size:1 KB
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/patch/?1929
___
Message sent
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #16385 (project freeciv):
another related question: should bases claim ownership of neighbouring tiles
without a unit present? (see bug #14236)
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16385
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #16413 (project freeciv):
I'm still testing it, but I'm afraid it does not seem to work
as expected.
Thanks for testing; I can check it again at the end of this month ...
Current Trunk revision 17939 gives me this error message when
I start new game:
Please
URL:
http://gna.org/patch/?1936
Summary: limit the number of units a city can support
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: syntron
Submitted on: Montag 06.09.2010 um 23:08
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 -
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #16413 (project freeciv):
for point 1) see patch #1936
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16413
___
Nachricht geschickt von/durch Gna!
Update of patch #1936 (project freeciv):
Priority: 5 - Normal = 1 - Later
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/patch/?1936
___
Nachricht
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #1936 (project freeciv):
Unit gold upkeep is already possible in the ruleset. I guess that some
government effect already can give a certain number of free units? Am I
wrong?
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #16385 (project freeciv):
Here's where I've got to:
First, after some work, I've more or less changed my mind about having a
single owner field + borders flag in the tile; see below for reasoning. I'm
now thinking about separate per-tile tile owner and base owner
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #16385 (project freeciv):
That's sound very great to me. For bug #16613, I will make new tests using
autogames on custom rulesets (because I didn't have test bases enough), but
it should be ready in about 1 week.
For patch #1864, it's not ready, there are probably big
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #16385 (project freeciv):
By the way, about the code, an important function for removing
a base properly is missing in my opinion.
I already have a separate patch 95% complete for factoring that out. I should
finish it.
URL:
http://gna.org/bugs/?16651
Summary: pseudo-fractal map generator can't be used with
different startpos options (other than default=0)
Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: tirolalira
Submitted on: lunes 06/09/10 at 22:29
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #1936 (project freeciv):
Your suggested free_units_per_city sounds perfect.
I agree it should affect only to military units, and I agree units that can't
be supported should be disbanded.
If the option slowly kill unhomecitied units is enabled, units could be
made
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #16413 (project freeciv):
You are right about error message, I forgot I had a modded default ruleset
in my /home/.freeciv folder...
I did not planned to report a bug unless tested with default rulesets.
I'm afraid my previous results about your patch are not valid for
Update of patch #1898 (project freeciv):
Status: In Progress = Ready For Test
___
Reply to this item at:
http://gna.org/patch/?1898
___
Message sent
Update of patch #1899 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Done
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of patch #1900 (project freeciv):
Status: Ready For Test = Done
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #15628 (project freeciv):
I'm browsing through the bugs while I wait for my git clone of the svn
repository to finish up (I'm up to r17852). This bug should probably be
closed. It has been over 5 months since the request for more information. I
doubt any is forthcoming.
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #1936 (project freeciv):
I don't know if this has been proposed or is currently done as I'm still new
to both the game and the code.
Instead of limiting the number of units a city can support under gold upkeep
rules, perhaps limit what gold can be used for the unit
41 matches
Mail list logo
