<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=39852 >
Pepeto _ wrote: > I think when you will get all this, you will conclude on a quite > identical patch than PR#20772. > The rejected patch(es) in PR#20772 did not address the underlying problem that this patch corrects. Those patches demonstrate that you didn't understand the code very well. Heck, that's fairly likely, as the code was not well documented. They also demonstrate that you didn't thoroughly test your patches before posting them. This is *not* a race. Looking at your patch(es), there seem to be some language difficulties. The term "position dangerous" does not mean there is any inherent danger concerning the tile, or that a foreign unit or city is there. It simply means it is not a good *final* resting place at the end of a turn (or after a series of turns). The term began with the trireme code. Perhaps not a good term, but I didn't choose it. I found no need for "unsafe" positions. But then, I didn't look very hard, as I started from scratch, not from your patch, and compared the code in S2_0, S2_1, and S2_2. As to the comments in the previous posting, I rest my case. I tested this patch with more than 1 turn. I also tested it with waypoints, and with nearly around the world, single goto, 2 turn stealth bomber paths requiring map scrolling. All were bugs reported, now fixed. (I did not test helicopters. Perhaps that should be another patch on another day, assuming somebody reports a problem after my commit, and gives a really good test case....) _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
