On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:48 AM, Per Inge Mathisen <per.mathi...@gmail.com> wrote: > I must say that am a little annoyed that this fix was committed to > trunk without review and without discussion, and then backported to a > release branch without discussion, even though it clearly had the > potential to destabilize the fragile net code.
...well, I guess I can't really talk my way out of this one. I'm sorry. I agree, I should've posted something on the ML first. When I started writing it, I intended it just to be a rename of some variables, do nothing but get rid of all the "we can't check bMultiPlayer since turnOffMultiMsg set it to false" messages; didn't really expect it to affect netcode much. > I would also have liked at least a notice on the mailing list about > beta6 before seeing a surprise announcement on the forum. ...heh, I thought we forgot something. On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Dennis Schridde <devuran...@gmx.net> wrote: > The "1h to release" was bad, but "-inf h" is just plain ugly... > Maybe some parts of the project are developing their very own drift? Hey, are we talking about the lack of an announcement on the ML, or are we talking about the lack of declaring an intention to tag ahead of time? Because I don't remember hearing about beta 5 until _after_ I saw "tagging beta 5" on the commits list... Unlike beta 5, we had a good reason to rush out beta 6 - we got around 7 bug reports about the reinforcements crash in the day after beta 5 was released, 5 of them after it had already been fixed in 2.3-branch. Which is a ton, considering even the more common bugs, like the commander bug, only got at most 1 bug report every few months. -Zarel _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
