[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #20954] Fortress not extending national border

2013-07-12 Thread DynV 
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #20954 (project freeciv):

It does explain the problem. However I did mention that I waited an extra turn
in my explanation. Also, an more importantly, I have trouble understanding the
point #3.

Do you mean if player A put a fortress in the limit of it's unclaimed border
to stretch it, then player B border meet it and eventually push it back, say
player A cities amount remained the same (thus not pushing one another), A
fortress will now be enveloped in B territory but still remaining to A? Even
if there's no unit in the fortress? If not, will non-aggressive unit suffice
to keep claim?

Thanks

___

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 #20954] Fortress not extending national border

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #20954 (project freeciv):

- Borders extend only at turn change, not immediately when you first build/add
border source.
- Fortresses are relatively weak at claiming borders, and in case of draw
current claimer wins. Fortresses are mainly good at claiming previously
totally unowned tiles (to for example making it impossible for others to found
cities on your island)
- Cities can always keep tiles they have managed to claim within their working
range except for new border source tiles (fortresses, cities)

If these don't explain what you see, could you attach savegame and
instructions to reproduce 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] [bug #20956] Bombarding an empty city allows veterancy gains.

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of bug #20956 (project freeciv):

Category:None => general

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

Depending on whether unit has CanOccupy -flag it should either occupy the city
or get the error message that it cannot.

___

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 #20957] Compilation fails with Ferry Stats Logging enabled

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of bug #20957 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Fixed  
 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 #20856] aisettler.c:food_starvation() seems to assume hardcoded 2 food/citizen.

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of bug #20856 (project freeciv):

  Status:  Ready For Test => Fixed  
 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 #3998] Change remaining "Special" & "Road" requirements to "Extra" requirements

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
URL:
  

 Summary: Change remaining "Special" & "Road" requirements to
"Extra" requirements
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Sat 13 Jul 2013 01:04:44 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:

I have missed a couple of "Special" and "Road" requirements in alien and
experimental rulesets. Convert those to "Extra" requirements.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Sat 13 Jul 2013 01:04:44 AM EEST  Name: ExprAlienExtraReq.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 #3997] Remove requirement types "Special", "Base", and "Road"

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
URL:
  

 Summary: Remove requirement types "Special", "Base", and
"Road"
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Sat 13 Jul 2013 12:59:10 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:

Individual requirement types "Special", "Base", and "Road" have been
superceded by general "Extra" requirements.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Sat 13 Jul 2013 12:59:10 AM EEST  Name: SpeBaseRoadReqRm.patch.bz2 
Size: 6kB   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 #3976] Extra requirements

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #3976 (project freeciv):

- Updated against svn
- Updated also to apply on top of patch #3987 - use base_extra_get() and
road_extra_get() instead of slower extra_type_get()

(file #18265)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: ExtraReqs-3.patch.bz2  Size:8 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 #3985] Use requirements of type "extra" in supplied rulesets

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Update of patch #3985 (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 #3987] Pointer to extra type to road/base types

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Follow-up Comment #1, patch #3987 (project freeciv):

- Const parameter to accessor functions

(file #18264)
___

Additional Item Attachment:

File name: BaseroadExtraGet-2.patch   Size:3 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 #3976] Extra requirements

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
Follow-up Comment #3, patch #3976 (project freeciv):

Isn't current model (that has the problem of being somewhat overlapping) about
just what you propose. Irrig_Possible effects define what you call distinct
"actions": one has requirement of adjacent irrigation, one requires adjacent
river, one in alien ruleset requires cardinally adjacent city center, another
in alien ruleset requires certain tech + adjacent city center...

___

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 #3992] make curved lines curved

2013-07-12 Thread mir3x 
Update of patch #3992 (project freeciv):

 Planned Release: => 2.5.0 2.6.0


___

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 #3976] Extra requirements

2013-07-12 Thread Sveinung Kvilhaugsvik 
Follow-up Comment #2, patch #3976 (project freeciv):

> Unfortunately we cannot obsolete the effects either. As we cannot have OR
requirements in extra requirement list, one cannot make irrigation possible
from nearby Ocean OR River OR Irrigation.

Possible solution: Separate the action of building an extra from the extra
definition. Many actions can result in the same extra. Irrigation from
Irrigation is a separate action from Irrigation from River but only one of
them appear in the GUI when both are possible as they are defined to be the
same (say by belonging to the same class).

Generalized actions could also be usable in other areas than extra building.
To establish a generalized action beach head in the code base without without
getting in the way of your extras work I could try to create a proof of
concept in another area.

___

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 #3992] make curved lines curved

2013-07-12 Thread mir3x 
Update of patch #3992 (project freeciv):

  Status:None => Ready For Test 

___

Follow-up Comment #1:

about that comment:
as far as I rembember - there is created bigger black pixmap, to avoid
clipping region and filling rest with black color.
(qt just won't fill rest of uncopied region with background colour,
or maybe it will copy outside pixmap - dont remeber which one)

___

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 #20964] player_invention_reachable() allow_prereqs mess

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
URL:
  

 Summary: player_invention_reachable() allow_prereqs mess
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Fri 12 Jul 2013 10:59:59 AM 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: 

___

Details:

What is supposed to be the function of "allow_prereqs" parameter to
player_invention_reachable()?

Function header says: "Returns TRUE iff the given tech is ever reachable by
the given player by checking tech tree limitations. If allow_prereqs is TRUE
check if the player can ever reach this tech." i.e, function always checks if
tech is ever reachable, and does the same thing if allow_prereqs is TRUE?

Reading the code, the only difference allow_prereq does (sans different
implementation that is logically equivalent) is that any root req must be
already known if it's not set, but reachability is enough when it's set. For
other requirements reachability is always enough.

I think most (all?) callers that have allow_prereq set to FALSE are in error.
Why wouldn't reachability be enough for root_req if at the same time it's
enough for other reqs?

One interesting caller is research dialog. Toggle between showing all or only
reachable techs was originally meant for distinct tech trees - to show only
current player's tree or entire tree. Now it never shows other trees, but
toggles between showing player's entire tree or only those parts for which
root_req is already known.




___

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 #3996] Road movement cost in help

2013-07-12 Thread Marko Lindqvist 
URL:
  

 Summary: Road movement cost in help
 Project: Freeciv
Submitted by: cazfi
Submitted on: Fri 12 Jul 2013 10:01:48 AM EEST
Category: client
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: Ready For Test
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0

___

Details:

Show road movement cost in help dialog. Replaced same information in explicit
helptext for Rivers with "fast travel".



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Fri 12 Jul 2013 10:01:48 AM EEST  Name: RoadSpeedHelp.patch  Size: 5kB  
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