http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
> Michael Kaufman wrote:
> > sorry, yes inventions are technically trinary, but for purposes of passing
> > to the client, they're binary, since update_research() is called upon
> > receiving a player_info packet.
> >
> Wow, is that wrong!
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
Michael Kaufman wrote:
> sorry, yes inventions are technically trinary, but for purposes of passing
> to the client, they're binary, since update_research() is called upon
> receiving a player_info packet.
>
Wow, is that wrong! I'll delete
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 03:58:01PM -0700, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
>
> Michael Kaufman wrote:
> > are you sure? inventions is boolean, so if memory serves [it usually
> > doesn'
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> Make sure to update capability string in same commit as you change
> packet definitions.
>
What a fine idea. That's documented where, exactly?
___
Freeciv-dev mailing
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
Michael Kaufman wrote:
> are you sure? inventions is boolean, so if memory serves [it usually
> doesn't; I don't have the packet handling code in front of me] BIT_STRING
> is going to give you a packet which is ~175 bytes smaller...
>
Inven
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 03:10:57PM -0700, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
>
> The problem was in some assumptions of the patch. Believing my own lying
> eyes, the code seemed to pass
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
On 14/08/07, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, there turned out to be intervening reformatting by the
> packet handler Rather than change my assumptions, changed the
> definition to a simple STRING.
>
>
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
The problem was in some assumptions of the patch. Believing my own lying
eyes, the code seemed to pass a string in the packet handler that was
(nearly) identical to the savegame.
Unfortunately, there turned out to be intervening reformattin
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
On 13/08/07, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just testing my recent patch with an old savegame, and F6 doesn't display
> any advances. Since I'm at Republic, that's not correct
Reproducible without that patch? Can
http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39558 >
Just testing my recent patch with an old savegame, and F6 doesn't display
any advances. Since I'm at Republic, that's not correct
___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mai
10 matches
Mail list logo
