Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?
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
[Warzone-dev] [bug #12084] Nick name glich.
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?12084 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: http://gna.org/bugs/?12084 ___ 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 s table)?
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
Re: [Warzone-dev] Bug#458275: should warzone2100 (beta) be in Debian testing (and migrate to stable)?
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 stable)?
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)?
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)?
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 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
[Warzone-dev] [patch #1088] Various Netcode Improvements
URL: http://gna.org/patch/?1088 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 x 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 http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=4626 --- Date: Thursday 24/07/08 at 16:46 Name: orderposition.patch Size: 3kB By: evilguru http://gna.org/patch/download.php?file_id=4625 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/patch/?1088 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
