Re: [Civlog-list] CivLog-0.6.1

[Raimar F. <hawk@B205a.WH8.TU-Dresden.De>]

On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:54:13PM +0100, Michael Grundel wrote:
> > [ I just noticed that it took the email 2 days to return from sourceforge ]
> 
> What makes you think so?
> It appears you sent your reply 2 (+-1) hours after I sent my mail.

Yes this mail was ok but the previous:
-----------
Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (mail1.sourceforge.net [198.186.203.35])
        by irz201.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id EAA11226
        for <rf...@in...>; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 04:01:00 +0200
Received: from mail1.sourceforge.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
        by lists.sourceforge.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id e8U1nOW06033;
        Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:49:24 -0700
Received: from A315-2b.WH8.TU-Dresden.De (B205a.WH8.TU-Dresden.De [141.30.225.38])
        by lists.sourceforge.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA29555
        for <civ...@li...>; Thu, 28 Sep 2000 07:27:56 -0700
-----------

> > On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 08:52:54PM +0100, Michael Grundel wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Raimar wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 05:03:22PM +0200, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 10:32:33PM +0800, Wong TM (Huang Deming) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     * Ulrich have made a lot of changes to restructure the data structure:
> > > > > >         - .......wait till I read through the mail.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you made the inclusion a bit to fast. The work of Ulrich has made
> > > > > aware some questions wrt Score. We now think we how to do it the "right way
> > > > > [tm]" so wait for a final version which should come in the next days.
> > > >
> > > > As promised here is the updated version. It is the result of collaboration
> > > > between Ulrich and me. We came to the conclusion that a second loop over all
> > > > lines is unnecessary. This also kills the huge "String lines[];" thing.
> > >
> > > Nice.
> > >
> > > > A remaining problem are "extra player" (player which aren't declared in the
> > > > header). The current solution is to create an array which is big enough to
> > > > hold every number of players. Fortunate freeciv is currently limited to 32
> > > > in this respect.
> > > >
> > > > Another remaining problem is the current implemenation of the relative modus
> > > > of PolyLineGroup. It may be possible to let extra players start somewhere in
> > > > the graph (see line 380 in Graph) however this doesn't work in the relative
> > > > modus. So unknown values are currently set to 0.
> > >
> > > Another problem is what I reported earlier: the player-numbering is not always
> > > continuous. I speculated that this may be a bug in freeciv. It is not.
> > > from report.c:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >   for (i = 0; tags[i]; i++)
> > >     {
> > >       for (n = 0; n < game.nplayers; n++)
> > > 	{
> > > 	  if (is_barbarian (&(game.players[n])))            <---------------- NOTE!
> > > 	    {
> > > 	      continue;                                     <---------------- NOTE!
> > > 	    }
> > > 	  switch (i)
> > > 	    {
> > > 	    case 0:
> > > 	      fom = total_player_citizens (&(game.players[n]));
> > > 	      break;
> > > 	    case 1:
> > > 	      fom = game.players[n].score.bnp;
> > > 	      break;
> > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > >
> > > Barabarians are not added to the log, so they generate gaps in the player
> > > numbering.
> > >
> > > When I open a score-file that has such a gap, 0.6.1-mod breaks:
> >
> > Can you give me such a scorefile?
> 
> attached.

I will do some tests.

> BTW, did you get any email from freeciv-dev over the last days?

No.

> I have not, the last one I got is from Sebastian Bauer from Thursday.

It is also the last email for me.

	Raimar

-- 
  Tank: So what do you need? Besides a miracle.
  Neo: Guns. Lots of guns.
    -- From The Matrix