xconq gnatsweb

xconq gnatsweb

[Eric McDonald]

Is the gnatsweb database being maintained? I noticed that all of the PR's are
open and unassigned, and that everything since last October is pending.

Re: xconq gnatsweb

[Jim Kingdon]

> Is the gnatsweb database being maintained? I noticed that all of the
> PR's are open and unassigned, and that everything since last October
> is pending.

Hmm, my first reaction was "what gnatsweb database?" so I guess that
means "no" (I guess we should say so on the web site unless someone
wants to do something with it).

I looked at bug 4 and it seems to already be fixed.  But I don't know
how to log in to gnats.  The whole thing seems to be rather less easy
to use than bugzilla...

Re: xconq gnatsweb

[Eric McDonald]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Jim Kingdon wrote:

> I looked at bug 4 and it seems to already be fixed.  But I don't know
> how to log in to gnats.  The whole thing seems to be rather less easy
> to use than bugzilla...

I think the gcc people switched over to bugzilla a while ago, and for a fairly
large open source community like that to make the switch, bugzilla must have
some merit over the others....

If no one is planning on maintaining a defect tracking system, then I suppose we
should submit PR's to the list?

Re: xconq gnatsweb

[Hans Ronne]

>On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Jim Kingdon wrote:
>
>> I looked at bug 4 and it seems to already be fixed.  But I don't know
>> how to log in to gnats.  The whole thing seems to be rather less easy
>> to use than bugzilla...
>
>I think the gcc people switched over to bugzilla a while ago, and for a fairly
>large open source community like that to make the switch, bugzilla must have
>some merit over the others....
>
>If no one is planning on maintaining a defect tracking system, then I
>suppose we
>should submit PR's to the list?

That's usually a better idea. The gnatsweb system did not work for the
first year or so, which is why it never got widely used by the xconq
community. I try to fix bugs that are reported to this list (or directly to
me) as soon as possible. In contrast, it's been several months since I last
looked at the gnatsweb page.

Hans

RE: xconq gnatsweb

[Erik Jessen]

We use Bugzilla at work; it's not perfect, but it does the job.

We really don't have tons of bugs in Xconq, but we found (at work) that
Bugzilla is also handy for tracking enhancement requests, "features",
etc.

Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com
[mailto:xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com] On Behalf Of Eric McDonald
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:01 AM
To: Jim Kingdon
Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: xconq gnatsweb

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Jim Kingdon wrote:

> I looked at bug 4 and it seems to already be fixed.  But I don't know
> how to log in to gnats.  The whole thing seems to be rather less easy
> to use than bugzilla...

I think the gcc people switched over to bugzilla a while ago, and for a
fairly
large open source community like that to make the switch, bugzilla must
have
some merit over the others....

If no one is planning on maintaining a defect tracking system, then I
suppose we
should submit PR's to the list?

Table: can-enter-independent

[Eric McDonald]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Hans Ronne wrote:

> >On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Hans Ronne wrote:
> >
> >> The theory behind the resupply code is that if you can enter a unit it is a
> >> friendly unit, and therefore you are treated like other occs. But to be
> >> able to enter independent units you must specify that indepside is a
> >> friendly side. If you are talking about resupply after capture of
> >> independent units, I think this makes perfect sense.
> >
> >No. I am talking about units that are allowed to enter [uncaptured]
> >independent
> >units by way of the can-enter-independent table. Specifically, my aircraft
> >types can enter independent cities and take supplies from them. I could see no
> >good rationale from allowing this. But since Xconq is used for a variety of
> >game types, I thought I would inquire.
>
> I see. Well, that falls into the same cathegory as making the indepside a
> friendly side. If the game designer thinks that you should be able to enter
> independent units, it kind of makes sense to also permit resupply from
> them. I guess your unit would count as a defending occupant in case the
> independent unit is attacked, so there is a mutual benefit.

Sounds fair. I think the semantics of this table are ambiguous enough that they
probably deserve some clarification in the documentation.

> I have never used this table myself. It seems that it is used by beirut.g
> where it refers to buildings, and for handling "side-specific" mine fields
> in the gazala game. Rather specialized applications, that is.

The effect I am trying to achieve is that of aircraft flying over independent
cities without engaging those cities. Using the 'can-enter-independent' table
allowed me to more or less achieve that effect (even though being an occupant
of the indep city is not really desirable).

My terrain-capacity-x table allows aircraft to enter a cell even if that cell
is filled to its capacity. So, I could perhaps put special entries into the
zoc-range table for cities and aircraft, but our friend, mplayer, would still
wish to flatten the cities with Bombers and Dive Bombers. Furthermore, I do
want hostile cities to exert their ZOC over the entire cell....

I am open to suggestions.

	Thanks,
		Eric