[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #16164] Aircraft commit suicide if 'autoattack' is set

[David Robarts]

Follow-up Comment #8, bug #16164 (project freeciv):

My preferred solution is to explicitly assign units to auto-attack. I'd call
the command "Hold Position".

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] README.rulesets and in-ruleset comments

[Emmet Hikory]

I had two items on my TODO: one about cleaning up README.rulesets to 
address some of the inaccuracies that have crept in over time and one 
about updating/unifying all the general class comments in the individual 
rulesets.  Having gotten through unification of the in-ruleset comments 
about buildings, specialists, and citystyles, I was reminded to update 
README.rulesets in relation to patch #3869, and wondered why the 
documentation is separated in the way that it is.

I would think that it would be easier to maintain all the ruleset 
documentation in README.rulesets, rather than in the individual ruleset 
files (simply from a duplication-avoidance strategy), but given the 
state of the documentation in each place, suspect that past experience 
has shown the opposite to be more true.

If I am planning to rewrite README.rulesets anyway, is it worth 
importing all the detail information from the ruleset comments, and 
referencing README.rulesets therein, with an expectation that future 
patches can be strongly encouraged to also update the docs, or is it 
believed that this isn't going to work, and I should continue to proceed 
with updates to both sets of documentation?

-- 
Emmet HIKORY

___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3869] Place partisans based on nativity

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #6, patch #3869 (project freeciv):

Excellent!  I like something that benefits not only me (saves lots of time),
but also benefits all the users (no confusion about potential ruleset
incompatibility).  Attached are the S2_3 and S2_4 patches: identical aside
from offsets.

(file #17812, file #17813)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: restrict-partisan-placement-to-native-S2_3.patch Size:0 KB
File name: restrict-partisan-placement-to-native-S2_4.patch Size:0 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3869] Place partisans based on nativity

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #5, patch #3869 (project freeciv):

Two checks version has also the *benefit* of not allowing non-Land partisans -
introducing those would be bordercase of breaking ruleset format freeze (if
someone then creates ruleset with non-Land partisans, it wouldn't work with
older releases of the same series).

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3869] Place partisans based on nativity

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #3869 (project freeciv):

There's two ways to solve the prior bug: either backport this patch
(potentially allowing non-Land partisans), or add a nativity check in addition
to the terrain class check.  Which do you prefer?  I'm tempted to add both
checks, because it means I don't have to dig through the older code to see if
there is something else that might get in the way of non-Land Partisans.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3826] Allow bases on city tiles

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #13, patch #3826 (project freeciv):

Do you think it's worth adding trivalue logic for 2.5, when it will all be
swept away for 2.6 with extras?  At least for the shipping rulesets, there are
no cases of this.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3869] Place partisans based on nativity

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3869 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Planned Release: => 2.3.5, 2.4.0, 2.5.0

___

Follow-up Comment #3:

Oh, I OTOH misshed the side that land partisans might have stricter
restrictions than just land. This actually means that we have a bug in stable
branches as any land partisan is supposed to work there.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3826] Allow bases on city tiles

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #12, patch #3826 (project freeciv):

As you are handling road and base upgrades separately, I assume some messages
to player be suboptimal if there's both road and base upgradet at the same
time. Namely: Will it say "The people ... stunned by your technological
insight!" twice when city is conquered, or "New hope sweeps like..." if new
tech allows both road and base type?

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3869] Place partisans based on nativity

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #2, patch #3869 (project freeciv):

Thanks for pointing that out: I was so concerned about not attempting to place
Land-moving partisans on non-native Land terrain that I completely missed that
this also enabled non-land-moving partisans.  Updated patch attached.

(file #17811)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: native-partisans+docs.patchSize:1 KB


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3876] Remove redundant tile_remove_base() call

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3876 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Planned Release: => 2.5.0  


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3868] Refactor unleash_barbarians() terrain analysis loop

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3868 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Planned Release: => 2.5.0  


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3869] Place partisans based on nativity

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3869 (project freeciv):

README.rulesets has list of units that ruleset format restrictions require to
be of certain move type. Assuming that this patch is sufficient to make
non-land-moving partisans possible, they should be removed from that listing.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3826] Allow bases on city tiles

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #11, patch #3826 (project freeciv):

Redundant call of tile_remove_base() now patch #3876

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3876] Remove redundant tile_remove_base() call

[Emmet Hikory]

URL:
  

 Summary: Remove redundant tile_remove_base() call
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: persia
Submitted on: Tue 23 Apr 2013 06:54:53 AM JST
Category: general
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 

___

Details:

Extracted from discussion in patch #3826

tile.c:tile_change_terrain() checks if fc_funcs->destroy_base is set, and
either calls the callback or calls tile_remove_base() if the callback is
unset.  Then, just to make sure, tile_remove_base() is called again. 
fc_funcs->destroy_base is set to NULL for the client and
maphand.c:destroy_base() for the server, which function also calls
tile_remove_base().

In practice, this means that for calls from the client, tile_remove_base() is
called twice in immediate succession within tile_change_terrain(), and for
calls from the server, tile_remove_base() is called from destroy_base() and
then immediately thereafter from tile_change_terrain().

This patch removes the redundant call and adds a comment indicating that the
code assumes that tile_remove_base() will be called by any function assigned
to fc_funcs->destroy_base().




___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Tue 23 Apr 2013 06:54:53 AM JST  Name:
remove-redundant-tile_remove_base-call.patch  Size: 880B   By: persia



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3839] Low hanging nativity fixes

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #4, patch #3839 (project freeciv):

Ah, in that case, let's assume the kill_something_with() hunk to be unsafe:
there's enough other work to be done in that part of the code for complex
nativity that it will surely be revisited.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3866] Drop is_cardinally_adj_to_ocean()

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3866 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Planned Release: => 2.5.0  


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3826] Allow bases on city tiles

[Emmet Hikory]

Follow-up Comment #10, patch #3826 (project freeciv):

Oh, sure.  These all assume that destroy_base() will call  tile_remove_base().
 I was mostly concerned about callbacks, because they could potentially *not*
call tile_remove_base(), which would require the extra call in
tile_change_terrain().

I'll open a different patch to drop the redundant call, and leave a comment
indicating that tile_change_terrain() relies on any callback set for
fc_funcs->destroy_base() to perform tile_remove_base().

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3865] Drop tile_clear_unsupported_infrastructure()

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3865 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Planned Release: => 2.5.0  


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3839] Low hanging nativity fixes

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3839 (project freeciv):

kill_something_with() is the change I'm most worried about too. You just let
more units (in non-default rulesets) to go on with the main codepath, and I've
seen that code to crash when unit properties unexpected to original
implementation encountered before.


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3826] Allow bases on city tiles

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #9, patch #3826 (project freeciv):

There's no other callers via fc_funcs->destroy_base(), but there's direct
callers in server

grep -r "destroy_base" server/

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3855] INSTALL gtk3-client section

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3855 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Done   
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3854] Consider nativity for is_square_threatened()

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3854 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Done   
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3857] Remove savegame.c:savefile_options_default[]

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3857 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Done   
 Assigned to:None => cazfi  
 Open/Closed:Open => Closed 


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20758] Buoys getting vision twice

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #20758 (project freeciv):

This report is probably invalid. What I thought to be "A & B" is in fact "if
(x) { A } else { B }"

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20758] Buoys getting vision twice

[Marko Lindqvist]

URL:
  

 Summary: Buoys getting vision twice
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Mon 22 Apr 2013 05:15:54 PM EEST
Category: None
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Release: 
 Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
 Planned Release: 2.5.0

___

Details:

I have not yet tried to reproduce, but I've got indications that vision bases
get vision assigned twice in S2_5 (current TRUNK, but 2.6 related base
ownership rework will fix this in TRUNK after S2_5 has been branched). As in
earlier branches, vision base get vision explicitly assigned upon its
creation. But in S2_5 base creation is reworked so that map_claim_base()
handles all the effects of the base ownership changes - this includes giving
vision to player who gets vision base.

Duoble vision could manifest itself when base gets removed - vision gets
removed only once, leaving player with positive vision counter of the tiles
(s)he should no longer see.




___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3872] Do not claim bases indirectly with terrain

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3872 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => In Progress


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3721] Getting rid of move_type dependency on unitselect dialog

[Marko Lindqvist]

Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3721 (project freeciv):

While making things thread-safe in case threads are used in the future does
have it merits, I don't see value in partial solution that just has smaller
window for particular error, but is still not at all thread-safe. That doesn't
make it one bit easier to implement it thread-safely in the future.

___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3874] Restore Buoys to multiplayer ruleset

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3874 (project freeciv):

  Depends on: => patch #3873


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3874] Restore Buoys to multiplayer ruleset

[Marko Lindqvist]

URL:
  

 Summary: Restore Buoys to multiplayer ruleset
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Mon 22 Apr 2013 11:21:28 AM EEST
Category: rulesets
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: Ready For Test
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 2.6.0

___

Details:

Enable Buoys in multiplayer ruleset again - this time without border claiming.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Mon 22 Apr 2013 11:21:28 AM EEST  Name: MultiplayerBuoys.patch  Size:
2kB   By: cazfi



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3873] Always claim created base

[Marko Lindqvist]

URL:
  

 Summary: Always claim created base
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Mon 22 Apr 2013 11:19:04 AM EEST
Category: general
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: Ready For Test
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 2.6.0

___

Details:

Claim newly built base even if it's not (later) claimable.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Mon 22 Apr 2013 11:19:04 AM EEST  Name: ClaimCreatedBase.patch  Size:
1007B   By: cazfi



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3872] Do not claim bases indirectly with terrain

[Marko Lindqvist]

Update of patch #3872 (project freeciv):

  Depends on: => patch #3630


___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

[Freeciv-Dev] [patch #3872] Do not claim bases indirectly with terrain

[Marko Lindqvist]

URL:
  

 Summary: Do not claim bases indirectly with terrain
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Mon 22 Apr 2013 11:08:41 AM EEST
Category: general
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: Ready For Test
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 2.6.0

___

Details:

Claim only those bases that are entered - not those that borders happen to
extend to.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Mon 22 Apr 2013 11:08:41 AM EEST  Name: ClaimBases.patch  Size: 7kB  
By: cazfi



___

Reply to this item at:

  

___
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


___
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev