I am _very_ sorry if you misunderstood that!

Actually I meant that Watermelon should check more thoroughly if the
changes
he makes don't break anything.
I know and understand that you can't check every weapon.
But Watermelon could have checked the weapons he modified. And if he did
it,
this all wouldn't have happened, since there would not have been 2 patches
with some bug in it. (While I still don't understand why he wanted to stop
homing missiles from ... homing.)

Again I don't want to attack anyone, incl. Watermelon, but it would be
nice if
he could submit his patches with better testing or explicitly state that
they
are untested.

I think this another confusion, because of my ambigous use of "you". :(
And probably I also mixed "commit" with "submit", so the confusion was
complete.

--Dennis

PS: At the time I wrote that commit message, I was just a little bit angry
that a bug which I just stripped out of a patch had suddenly reappeared.

When I tested the other patch, I wondered about the comment about removing
homing missiles, but didn't notice the problem those few lines created.
That I found the bug was pure luck, because the SCOURGE cyborgs are the
last
in the unit list in the cheat menu. If they wouldn't have been, this bug
had
probably been allready commited earlier by me (and not by you, Troman).
When it then would have been found I wouldn't have feeled any anger,
because I
wouldn't have "just fixed it".

So this is probably just a chain of (bad) luck.
What stays is that Watermelon sometimes seems to submit not very
thoroughly
tested/reviewed patches...
(I really like your changes, they are awesome! It's just that the code
seems
to have more often some apparently overlooked / unchecked changes.)

A (real and honest) tip for you:
Before you submit a patch, review it again. Editors with syntax
highlighting
for GNU diff/patch are certainly a good help for this.
Look at every line, think if they are needed, what they actually do and
why
you changed them.
Then try to test those changes in the game. (Unit-test like.)


the bug was caused by a fix to fix old 'bug'(homing weapon never
stops/self-destruct unless it hits the unit or the unit is destroyed by
other units),though I did the 'timeout check' twice by mistake when fixing
the 'homing forever' bug.

I did test the patch extensively,but I dont have to the time to test every
single unit/weapon in game,I just fire up a 7 AI game and let them fight the
shyt out of each other.Though any bug involving units/buildings that the AI
dont build/use might get slipped due to my questionable testing measure.

For the GCC warnings,imo it's just impossible to eliminate those
compiler-dependent warnings,with MSVC warning level 4 you still unable to
reproduce the ones in GCC compiler,and any other combination of IDE and
compiler might generate more warnings than 'plain GCC'(I tried code::block +
GCC,it has alot more warnings than 'plain GCC').Further more,some 'fixed'
warnings might become 'new' warnings in other IDE/compiler combinations.
_______________________________________________
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Reply via email to