From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4116 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2004 03:07:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4107 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2004 03:07:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail3.panix.com) (166.84.1.74) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Aug 2004 03:07:10 -0000 Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615F0981D1; Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:07:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kingdon@localhost) by panix5.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id i7T37AA01871; Sat, 28 Aug 2004 23:07:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:14:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200408290307.i7T37AA01871@panix5.panix.com> From: Jim Kingdon To: xconq7@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: xconq net game: loss of sync References: <200408282002.i7SK2Yif017125@outbound1.mail.tds.net> <001501c48d62$dc7cbbd0$feb3fea9@blackbox> <200408290257.i7T2v8j01361@panix5.panix.com> X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg01072.txt.bz2 Oh, a bug in the supply code is sort of what I was insinuating before, but there is at least one other possibility: whether I really ended up with the same version of xconq as Tom. I did a CVS update and applied Eric's patch ( http://sources.redhat.com/ml/xconq7/2004/msg01014.html ). So assuming that is what Eric did, this probably isn't it. But I thought I'd mention it just in case. (Insert random boilerplate grumbling about how fragile xconq's protocol is, compared with a freeciv-style one (as I understand the latter, anyway). Insert groveling about how I shouldn't really gumble so much unless I'm volunteering to fix it).