[Warzone-dev] [patch #1088] Various Netcode Improvements

[Freddie Witherden]

URL:
  

 Summary: Various Netcode Improvements
 Project: Warzone Resurrection Project
Submitted by: evilguru
Submitted on: Thursday 24/07/08 at 16:46
Category: Fix
Priority: 7 - High
  Status: Ready For Test
 Privacy: Public
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: 
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Planned Release: None

___

Details:

Here are a couple of netcode improvements I have been working on.

The first one sends the droids position and body points along with an order
-- this should fix some of the out of sync problems in trunk and beta4.

The second one updates the sync code so that it is purely limited by
bandwidth (as opposed to a frequency counter  timers per second).

Both, however need extensive testing.



___

File Attachments:


---
Date: Thursday 24/07/08 at 16:46  Name: multisyncrates.patch  Size: 2kB   By:
evilguru


---
Date: Thursday 24/07/08 at 16:46  Name: orderposition.patch  Size: 3kB   By:
evilguru



___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?

[Giel van Schijndel]

Christian Ohm schreef:
> On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at  2:00, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
>> Paul Wise schreef:
>>> On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 01:15 +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
 Any thoughts on this?
>>> Another beta might be a good idea, if it is done quickly.
>>>
>>> Also, when the final release is done, we can put a warzone2100 backport
>>> on backports.org for lenny users to upgrade to. Many people don't know
>>> about backports.org though, so that might become a support issue/FAQ for
>>> the warzone devs.
>> To all devs (with or without commit access): I would really like this to
>> be an "active" decision on our part, as opposed to a "passive" one,
>> where we allow the decision to be made for us due to time passing. I.e.
>> either we decide that we do want our current state of 2.1 to be included
> 
> I think that is the problem. If 2.1 is included in stable now, it will
> stay at the version included at freeze time, whatever that will be (if I
> remember the policy correctly). There is debian-volatile for
> fast-changing packages, though the descriptions only talks about things
> like virus scanners or spam filters, I don't know if games are accepted
> there, and I don't know how many people know about it (possibly even
> less than backports).
> 
> So is whatever will be available at freeze time suitable to be included
> in a stable distribution for over a year?
> 
>> in Debian's next stable release, or we decide that we don't want that to
>> happen. As long as that decision is an active one, I can live with both.
> 
> Well, if it can be updated (which I doubt, but I could be wrong), then
> I'm ok with including it, but if it cannot, then backports sounds like
> the better plan to me.

AFAIK the package can *not* receive any updates once it enters stable.
Apart from security fixes that is. But I'm pretty sure that, warzone
being a game and all, isn't eligible for security updates.

@Paul: can you confirm or deny this?

-- 
Giel



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in?Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?

[Christian Ohm]

On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 14:27, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> I assumed just the 2.1 part would be fixed, but 2.1.x bugfix releases would 
> still go into future releases of Lenny and onto the update-servers?

I think there are only security updates, and a few point releases for
the whole distro. IIRC the last stable was released ~18 months ago, with
2 updates after 6 months each (and I don't know what goes into those -
might only be the collected security updates). So basically, what goes
into stable stays there for months (unless we include enough security
holes to fix for every release :).

___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?

[Dennis Schridde]

Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2008 13:47:17 schrieb Christian Ohm:
> On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at  2:00, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> > either we decide that we do want our current state of 2.1 to be included
>
>
> I think that is the problem. If 2.1 is included in stable now, it will
> stay at the version included at freeze time, whatever that will be (if I
> remember the policy correctly). There is debian-volatile for
> fast-changing packages, though the descriptions only talks about things
> like virus scanners or spam filters, I don't know if games are accepted
> there, and I don't know how many people know about it (possibly even
> less than backports).
>
> So is whatever will be available at freeze time suitable to be included
> in a stable distribution for over a year?
I assumed just the 2.1 part would be fixed, but 2.1.x bugfix releases would 
still go into future releases of Lenny and onto the update-servers?

> > in Debian's next stable release, or we decide that we don't want that to
> > happen. As long as that decision is an active one, I can live with both.
>
> Well, if it can be updated (which I doubt, but I could be wrong), then
> I'm ok with including it, but if it cannot, then backports sounds like
> the better plan to me.
Agreed.

--DevUrandom


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?

[Christian Ohm]

On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at  9:28, Per Inge Mathisen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:50 AM, bugs buggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For what it is worth, I rather have 2.1 (beta or not) be included, for the
> > simple fact that if it is not, then people keep submitting bugs for 2.0.10,
> > and that doesn't do anybody any good.
> 
> I do not think Debian ships 2.0.x

Yes. The question is not "2.0.10 or 2.1.beta4" but "2.1.beta4 or no
Warzone in Debian stable".

___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?

[Christian Ohm]

On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at  2:00, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> Paul Wise schreef:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 01:15 +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> >> Any thoughts on this?
> > 
> > Another beta might be a good idea, if it is done quickly.
> > 
> > Also, when the final release is done, we can put a warzone2100 backport
> > on backports.org for lenny users to upgrade to. Many people don't know
> > about backports.org though, so that might become a support issue/FAQ for
> > the warzone devs.
> 
> To all devs (with or without commit access): I would really like this to
> be an "active" decision on our part, as opposed to a "passive" one,
> where we allow the decision to be made for us due to time passing. I.e.
> either we decide that we do want our current state of 2.1 to be included
   

I think that is the problem. If 2.1 is included in stable now, it will
stay at the version included at freeze time, whatever that will be (if I
remember the policy correctly). There is debian-volatile for
fast-changing packages, though the descriptions only talks about things
like virus scanners or spam filters, I don't know if games are accepted
there, and I don't know how many people know about it (possibly even
less than backports).

So is whatever will be available at freeze time suitable to be included
in a stable distribution for over a year?

> in Debian's next stable release, or we decide that we don't want that to
> happen. As long as that decision is an active one, I can live with both.

Well, if it can be updated (which I doubt, but I could be wrong), then
I'm ok with including it, but if it cannot, then backports sounds like
the better plan to me.

___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?

[Tim Baumgartner]

Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> Paul Wise schreef:
>> On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 01:15 +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
>>> Any thoughts on this?
>> Another beta might be a good idea, if it is done quickly.
>>
>> Also, when the final release is done, we can put a warzone2100 backport
>> on backports.org for lenny users to upgrade to. Many people don't know
>> about backports.org though, so that might become a support issue/FAQ for
>> the warzone devs.
> 
> To all devs (with or without commit access): I would really like this to
> be an "active" decision on our part, as opposed to a "passive" one,
> where we allow the decision to be made for us due to time passing. I.e.
> either we decide that we do want our current state of 2.1 to be included
> in Debian's next stable release, or we decide that we don't want that to
> happen. As long as that decision is an active one, I can live with both.
> 
> The only negative impact of this on us I can see is the support/FAQ
> issue mentioned above by Paul.
> 

I think another quick beta would be a good route if 2.1 is currently stable 
enough and runs well on Debian, otherwise there really isn't a good reason to 
include it in a stable release (and, yes, I know I'm stating the obvious ;)

If there are still some rough edges in Debian 2.1, sticking 2.0.10 in lenny and 
relegating 2.1 to backports.org might be the better course of action.

Tim

___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to s table)?

[Dennis Schridde]

Am Donnerstag, 24. Juli 2008 02:00:15 schrieb Giel van Schijndel:
> Paul Wise schreef:
> > On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 01:15 +0200, Giel van Schijndel wrote:
> >> Any thoughts on this?
> >
> > Another beta might be a good idea, if it is done quickly.
> >
> > Also, when the final release is done, we can put a warzone2100 backport
> > on backports.org for lenny users to upgrade to. Many people don't know
> > about backports.org though, so that might become a support issue/FAQ for
> > the warzone devs.
>
> To all devs (with or without commit access): I would really like this to
> be an "active" decision on our part, as opposed to a "passive" one,
> where we allow the decision to be made for us due to time passing. I.e.
> either we decide that we do want our current state of 2.1 to be included
> in Debian's next stable release, or we decide that we don't want that to
> happen. As long as that decision is an active one, I can live with both.
>
> The only negative impact of this on us I can see is the support/FAQ
> issue mentioned above by Paul.
The question is just whether we wont a not-yet-finished version to appear in 
Debian? I wont mind.
This is under the assumption that 2.1.0 and following version will be 
automatically included...

--DevUrandom


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

[Warzone-dev] [bug #12084] Nick name glich.

[anonymous]

URL:
  

 Summary: Nick name glich.
 Project: Warzone Resurrection Project
Submitted by: None
Submitted on: Четверг 24.07.2008 at 10:08 CEST
Category: Engine: GUI
Severity: Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
  Status: None
 Assigned to: None
Originator Email: Terminator
 Open/Closed: Open
 Discussion Lock: Any
 Release: 2.1_beta4
Operating System: Microsoft Windows
 Planned Release: None

___

Details:

When typeing too long(more than 3 chars) nick name in MP game menu & press
host game > Nick is cuts off to three chars: Exemple: if nick " Terminator" >
its turd into > "Ter".

I use beta4 (latest with game menu text fix).




___

Reply to this item at:

  

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


___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev

Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?

[Per Inge Mathisen]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:50 AM, bugs buggy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For what it is worth, I rather have 2.1 (beta or not) be included, for the
> simple fact that if it is not, then people keep submitting bugs for 2.0.10,
> and that doesn't do anybody any good.

I do not think Debian ships 2.0.x

I still find 2.1 too buggy for mass distribution. But then, I am a
perfectionist. Fedora ships with beta3, and it seems to work for most
people most of the time.

  - Per

___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev