On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:29:39 +0930
"Michael T. Pope" wrote:
> .. only one that I consider release blocking,
> which is Marcin's REF immediate surrender problem in #3246. So that is
> now my high priority weekend job.
I think we are good for release following git.c9eedcf. The REF is now
more stu
On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 18:54:47 +
Stian Grenborgen wrote:
> We are still running our website www.freecol.org using http. It's possible
> switching over to https, while keeping our own domain name, by requesting it
> from SourceForge. They would need to manually add our domain to the list of
>
On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 17:06:49 +
Stian Grenborgen wrote:
> > One issue with the process is it isn't consistently timed as I have to
> > physically perform each part
> > of the process. I also cannot generate the MacOS installer.
>
> The Mac bundle can be created using GitHub Actions. We can al
I think that's an excellent idea. We should go for it. It's beyond my
ability and knowledge (and perhaps access to SourceForge). Anything the
developers can do to make FreeCol more accessible to the people that are
playing the game, the better. Posting to Facebook and Discord would be
really helpfu
Hi,
We are still running our website www.freecol.org using http. It's possible
switching over to https, while keeping our own domain name, by requesting it
from SourceForge. They would need to manually add our domain to the list of
SubjectAlternativeName on their server certificate.
Should I r
> [Mike:]
> All this is true and great progress, but we have always said 1.0 will be
> fully Col1 compatible (at least in classic mode). I do not think we are
> there yet. A look at the WWC1D? wiki page will show that we do not even
> know how compatible we are:-).
Well, I used to say feature co
> How about that, we are in pretty good shape. I have looked through the
> bugs back to 0.11.6, and found only one that I consider release blocking,
> which is Marcin's REF immediate surrender problem in #3246. So that is
> now my high priority weekend job.
Great :-)
> The AI ship fail (3247 =
> [Caleb:]
> The GitHub mirror was originally configured to be an automatic process. I
> believe
> it was a Travis CI hook, but at any rate when changes were made to the SF
> repository,
> the CI hook ran and pushed to GH.
We can do this directly from SourceForge.net using a Git server hook. The
