-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 bugs buggy wrote: > Do we switch to 10000 for 2.2 & trunk? (Note, this will be the last > switch, since we will have version checking code in the codebase) > 9996 is used by a trojan (W32.Sasser.Worm), so I doubt we want to use > that port-- I know a few ISPs are blocking that one. Insane ISPs IMHO.
> Then again, it was mentioned on IRC that we could use port 80, since > everything but the kitchen sink uses that...(which means, that for the > most part, people already have this open in their FW/router). Then > there is port 2100 :) 2100 sounds okay to me. > Right now, if a 2.0.x client hooks up to anything else, it crashes. > if a 2.1.x client hooks up to anything else, it don't crash, but it > don't really work either, we have had lots of changes in the net code. > That is why I am against using the old ports. I think so, too. Using old ports could cause inconveniences for our users. And users probably expect us to use a new port as we did the same with 2.1 as well. > Also, for the write dir, we have for 2.1: > win: Warzone 2100 2.1 > mac: Warzone 2100 2.1 > linux: .warzone2100-2.1 > > Since 2.2 will need a new port, (and thus a new config file specifing > a new port), > Do we stick with the format above, and just make it 2.2? I'd say: Yes. I doubt there were any real problems with it. > Anyone think of anything else that needs changing before we kick out > the alpha (or beta)? Is the Changelog up-to-date? - - Kreuvf -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJvTtm4y86f1GXLDwRAnJJAKCpFKNHcPy4zczM8xhpmVi3ZmpqlACghH78 sxS+zLEJeCRlVobTQxZOQms= =7iVs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
