Jorge Vargas wrote:
> On 12/7/06, Michael Burschik <Michael.Burschik@...> wrote:
>> Jorge Vargas wrote:
>>> it seems that was fixed, I was wondering how can you set a specific
>>> scenario like that?
> is the a way I can set the game to a specific state, in the case of
> that bug I'll have to set a lot of units which specific caracteristics
> in order to reproduce it.
No, unfortunately you can't do that yet. In this case, however,
reproducing the bug wasn't that important because it was more or less
clear what might have caused it. At the beginning of a new turn, the
unit's move allowance is set to a type-specific value, but if the unit's
type changed during the turn, its movement allowance was not adjusted to
its new type. Hence the bug.
>> I do not understand your question.
>>>> as does Feature Request #1607372, for example. In
>>>> the case of Feature Requests, it would be a good idea to ask the other
>>>> developers whether they agree with the request before implementing it.
>>> that seems a little ambiguos does that means you "always" get tobacco planter??
>> No, it doesn't. It says "a skill like Master Tobacco Planter", which
>> implies that this is an example. But bug reports and feature requests
>> are often vague, because the reporters are not acquainted with the code.
>> My own bug reports are often pretty vague if they concern areas of the
>> code I have not been working on.
> ummm ok I hate bad bug reports :)
Who doesn't? But they are the rule and not the exception. And
personally, I didn't even think it bad. And we should remember that we
all correspond and report bugs in English, but for most of us, English
is not our native language. That makes it more difficult to describe the
>> But my point is this: If you get a bug report or feature request like
>> this, you look at the code (that should be the map generator in this
>> case), figure out how things are done at the moment, how this might lead
>> to problems, and how things could be improved. So, have a look a
>> generateSkillForLocation and find a better solution.
> ok thanks for the pointer I'll look into that