rails-devel — List for discussion of Rails development

Re: [Rails-devel] next 1835 bug

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

A check was missing on that: M1 bought a 5-train and was still considered
being operational. 
I have added a check after resuming an OR after a PR formation round
triggered by buying a train: if the operating company has closed in the
meantime (as is the case here), the turn will be finished.

It now runs well, but I was surprised to see that now the PR gets a turn. I
doubt if that is correct.
AFAIK, the PR cannot operate if any minor has both operated and merged in
that same OR. Or am I wrong here?
I vaguely remember a discussion about this issue long ago, but I'm not sure
what  the outcome was.

I also fixed a harmless error in the definition of tile -114 (Braunschweig):
an extra redundant null track, which I have removed.
Nothing pushed yet.

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:13 AM
> To: vol...@ar...; 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] next 1835 bug
> 
> There is an uncatched exception on the console:
> Exception in thread "AWT-EventQueue-0" java.lang.NullPointerException
> 	at
> rails.game.OperatingRound.setBuyableTrains(OperatingRound.java:3056)
> 	at
> rails.game.OperatingRound.setPossibleActions(OperatingRound.java:392)
> 	...
> The cause probably is, that the operating company that bought the train no
> longer exists whilst wrapping up its OR turn. I presume this bug has crept
in
> by some change.
> I'll try to sort it out tomorrow.
> 
> Erik
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Schnell, Volker [mailto:vol...@ar...]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:56 PM
> > To: rai...@li...
> > Subject: [Rails-devel] next 1835 bug
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > our game have some strange options.
> > the pre Pru M1 buy the first 5-Train. Then the merger takes place und
> rails
> > stopped.
> > "done" is an option, but nothing happens. see attached file The
> > Prussian
> can
> > operate normal incl. the 5-Train. The owner of the M1 receive no
revenue.
> >
> > greetings
> >
> > Volker
> >
> > --
> > Volker Schnell
> > email: vol...@ar...
> > homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell
> 
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is
> happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic
> at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] next 1835 bug

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

There is an uncatched exception on the console:
Exception in thread "AWT-EventQueue-0" java.lang.NullPointerException
	at
rails.game.OperatingRound.setBuyableTrains(OperatingRound.java:3056)
	at
rails.game.OperatingRound.setPossibleActions(OperatingRound.java:392)
	...
The cause probably is, that the operating company that bought the train no
longer exists whilst wrapping up its OR turn. I presume this bug has crept
in by some change.
I'll try to sort it out tomorrow.

Erik


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schnell, Volker [mailto:vol...@ar...]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:56 PM
> To: rai...@li...
> Subject: [Rails-devel] next 1835 bug
> 
> Hello,
> 
> our game have some strange options.
> the pre Pru M1 buy the first 5-Train. Then the merger takes place und
rails
> stopped.
> "done" is an option, but nothing happens. see attached file The Prussian
can
> operate normal incl. the 5-Train. The owner of the M1 receive no revenue.
> 
> greetings
> 
> Volker
> 
> --
> Volker Schnell
> email: vol...@ar...
> homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell

[Rails-devel] next 1835 bug

[Schnell, V. <vol...@ar...>]

Hello,

our game have some strange options.
the pre Pru M1 buy the first 5-Train. Then the merger takes place und 
rails stopped.
"done" is an option, but nothing happens. see attached file
The Prussian can operate normal incl. the 5-Train. The owner of the M1 
receive no revenue.

greetings

Volker

-- 
Volker Schnell
email: vol...@ar...
homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell

[Rails-devel] Release Rails 1.7.11 available

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

A new maintenance release for Rails 1.x series

Downloads are available at http://rails.sourceforge.net/ or by the
direct link http://sourceforge.net/projects/rails/files/Rails/1.7.11/

This release fixes two bugs.

Contributors: Erik Vos, Stefan Frey

Bugs reported by Volker Schnell

Lists of bugs fixed:
- When buying trains from other companies, include companies that have 
floated
but do not operate in the current round for any reason.
Example was the PR in 1835.
- 1889: the free tile lay of private C was not offered if the cash 
position was not exceeding
the (not-applicable) costs of building in the hex

Further:
- Sorted 1835 game options to make the Options list looks prettier.

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

That kind of distinction is already covered by Rails.

Erik.

 

From: Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:16 PM
To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug

 

There's another set of scenarios to consider - some games distinguish
between the bank and the market (aka bank pool) when specifying where a
train may (or must) be purchased during emergency money raising.  The
question is usually framed "is a company that has used emergency money
raising required to buy a cheap train from the market, or may it buy a more
expensive train from the bank?"

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug

[Chris S. <chr...@gm...>]

There's another set of scenarios to consider - some games distinguish
between the bank and the market (aka bank pool) when specifying where a
train may (or must) be purchased during emergency money raising.  The
question is usually framed "is a company that has used emergency money
raising required to buy a cheap train from the market, or may it buy a more
expensive train from the bank?"

--
Chris

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.


On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Bourke <com...@ip...>wrote:

> It's not expressly forbidden. Neither is it expressly permitted. That
> generally leaves the question in the form of customary usage and house
> rules, which are necessarily local and not general.
>
> There are three common approaches to a company being forced to buy a train.
> The first is that a train may be purchased from any corporation that has
> one, or from the bank, provided that such purchases are not explicitly
> forbidden. The second restricts such purchases to non-government
> corporations and the bank. The third restricts the purchases to the bank
> only. All are equally valid under the rules, but can produce very different
> game play.
>
> That is why I suggested the possibility of this being an option (probably
> on
> the game configuration panel), with the first approach (the most universal
> /
> least restricted) being the default. So the game currently works correctly
> in that default mode except in the matter of the original bug reported.
>
> Mike Bourke
> Campaign Mastery http://www.campaignmastery.com
> Co-author, Assassin's Amulet http://www.legaciescampaignsetting.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012 10:53 PM
> To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug
>
> > That's the two-company dump, which is expressly banned in nearly all 18xx
> > games, usually by requiring that any train purchase which involves
> > emergency money raising be from the bank or bank pool and not from
> > another company.
>
> If I'm correct, Rails does not prevent buying trains from other companies
> in
> emergency train buying. Certainly not in 1830 (where I have a test case).
> So that is a bug (except perhaps in 1830)?
>
> Erik.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug

[Mike B. <com...@ip...>]

It's not expressly forbidden. Neither is it expressly permitted. That
generally leaves the question in the form of customary usage and house
rules, which are necessarily local and not general.

There are three common approaches to a company being forced to buy a train.
The first is that a train may be purchased from any corporation that has
one, or from the bank, provided that such purchases are not explicitly
forbidden. The second restricts such purchases to non-government
corporations and the bank. The third restricts the purchases to the bank
only. All are equally valid under the rules, but can produce very different
game play.

That is why I suggested the possibility of this being an option (probably on
the game configuration panel), with the first approach (the most universal /
least restricted) being the default. So the game currently works correctly
in that default mode except in the matter of the original bug reported.

Mike Bourke
Campaign Mastery http://www.campaignmastery.com
Co-author, Assassin's Amulet http://www.legaciescampaignsetting.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...] 
Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012 10:53 PM
To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game'
Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug

> That's the two-company dump, which is expressly banned in nearly all 18xx
> games, usually by requiring that any train purchase which involves
> emergency money raising be from the bank or bank pool and not from
> another company.

If I'm correct, Rails does not prevent buying trains from other companies in
emergency train buying. Certainly not in 1830 (where I have a test case).
So that is a bug (except perhaps in 1830)?

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

> That's the two-company dump, which is expressly banned in nearly all 18xx
> games, usually by requiring that any train purchase which involves
> emergency money raising be from the bank or bank pool and not from
> another company.

If I'm correct, Rails does not prevent buying trains from other companies in
emergency train buying. Certainly not in 1830 (where I have a test case).
So that is a bug (except perhaps in 1830)?

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug

[John D. G. <jd...@di...>]

On 2012-10-09 16:29, Mike Bourke wrote:
> I have seen some groups who don't permit the purchase of trains from
> Government-owned corporations (the Prussian and CGR, specifically). This
> might be yet another candidate for a game option. To the best of my
> knowledge, these two would be the only operating companies that would have
> been affected by this bug.

I haven't seen that variant rule, but it makes some sense.  The CGR does
have some serious restrictions on its ability to buy/sell trains in the
standard rules, as does the Asteroid League; but the Prussian and the three
state companies of 1837 don't.

A harder question would arise in games like 18Mex, when a minor company may
merge into and transfer a train to a larger company that isn't allowed to
operate yet (requires a phase change and/or more shares to be purchased
before it can float).  In that situation I would not let anyone buy a train
from the "hibernating" company, even if we already know who its president
will be.

> In a related issue, I do believe that some of the 18xx game rules forbid the
> purchase of trains from corporations who have not *operated* yet, even if
> they have floated, but I can't be more specific or more certain.

I'm not aware of any cases like this.  Of course in most games it can't
happen; it requires that the company which hasn't yet operated have a train,
I've seen this happen because that company began with a train (minors in
18EU) or because it is a merged company and one of its predecessors had a
train (1841, 1832, 18C2C, but also the Prussian, CGR, Asteroid League, and
1837 state RRs).  I'm pretty sure that none of these games prohibits those
companies from selling their trains before they first operate, except that
if the Asteroid League has only one train it can't sell it.

> This would
> prohibit certain bootstrapping practices (float a corp, buy an about-to-die
> train from another corp for most of the treasury, buy a train to trigger a
> phase change, the corp which received the treasury then buys the new and
> better train from the first at a pittance. The owner is then forced to sell
> shares in order to raise capital for a train, dumping the company - and the
> problem - on some other poor schmuck who bought shares in the company in
> good faith).

That's the two-company dump, which is expressly banned in nearly all 18xx
games, usually by requiring that any train purchase which involves emergency
money raising be from the bank or bank pool and not from another company.

(In the original 1830 it is still possible to generate a heated rules debate
by saying that this maneuver is or isn't legal -- the rules simply don't
address the question, and I believe that ALL possible rulings one way or the
other lead to contradictions, making it a classic paradox.  Bruce Shelley's
errata tries to quash it by, once again, requiring that an emergency train
purchase be made from the bank or bank pool, and this is the way most people
in my area play the game.)

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug

[Mike B. <com...@ip...>]

I have seen some groups who don't permit the purchase of trains from
Government-owned corporations (the Prussian and CGR, specifically). This
might be yet another candidate for a game option. To the best of my
knowledge, these two would be the only operating companies that would have
been affected by this bug.

In a related issue, I do believe that some of the 18xx game rules forbid the
purchase of trains from corporations who have not *operated* yet, even if
they have floated, but I can't be more specific or more certain. This would
prohibit certain bootstrapping practices (float a corp, buy an about-to-die
train from another corp for most of the treasury, buy a train to trigger a
phase change, the corp which received the treasury then buys the new and
better train from the first at a pittance. The owner is then forced to sell
shares in order to raise capital for a train, dumping the company - and the
problem - on some other poor schmuck who bought shares in the company in
good faith).

Mike Bourke
Campaign Mastery http://www.campaignmastery.com
Co-author, Assassin's Amulet http://www.legaciescampaignsetting.com

Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

Ah, interesting.  The cause is, that the train search algorithm skips
operating companies that do not (yet) actually operate (i.e., in the current
OR).  

I have found and pushed a fix, that now includes all  companies that have
floated (and are otherwise eligible to sell trains).
Hopefully there are no exceptions to this new rule. I can't think of any,
and all test cases pass, so in all likelihood we are OK.

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schnell, Volker [mailto:vol...@ar...]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 7:25 PM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug
> 
> hi
> 
> here is another bug in rails 1.7.10.
> When the first 4-Train is bought from the Bayern-President, the owner of
the
> M2 decides to start the Prussian.
> The director changes to Klaus-Jürgen, who owns the majority.
> Then the Wür wants to by a Train from the Prussian, but Rails gives no
such
> option.
> see also the attached file.
> 
> greetings
> 
> volker
> 
> --
> Volker Schnell
> email: vol...@ar...
> homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik:
I hope you will soon come back to the development.
If you check it out, you will realize that I really tried hard to keep 
the main structure and ideas intact.

So most likely you will feel yourself comfortable, especially adding new 
games should be easier in the future and in my impression this was your 
main goal in the recent past.

Your work never made it more difficult (merging is far easier than 
writing the new code myself) and I hope this does not discourage you 
from adding to the project as without you it would never got that far.

Stefan

On 10/09/2012 04:53 PM, Erik Vos wrote:
>> were you able to proceed?
>
> Not yet, but I haven't tried. Thanks for your suggestions. I'll pick it up
> one of these days.
>
> Unfortunately (from the Rails perspective), I'm now spending most of my time
> playing Grepolis, which is rather absorbing. One day that will end...
>
> It'll probably be easier to make a restart now that Stefan is about done
> with Rails2.0.  We clearly were on diverging paths, and the understanding
> that much of my work was making it harder for him didn't help to keep me
> active.
>
> Erik.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>

[Rails-devel] 1835 Bug

[Schnell, V. <vol...@ar...>]

hi

here is another bug in rails 1.7.10.
When the first 4-Train is bought from the Bayern-President, the owner of 
the M2 decides to start the Prussian.
The director changes to Klaus-Jürgen, who owns the majority.
Then the Wür wants to by a Train from the Prussian, but Rails gives no 
such option.
see also the attached file.

greetings

volker

-- 
Volker Schnell
email: vol...@ar...
homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

> were you able to proceed?

Not yet, but I haven't tried. Thanks for your suggestions. I'll pick it up
one of these days.  

Unfortunately (from the Rails perspective), I'm now spending most of my time
playing Grepolis, which is rather absorbing. One day that will end...

It'll probably be easier to make a restart now that Stefan is about done
with Rails2.0.  We clearly were on diverging paths, and the understanding
that much of my work was making it harder for him didn't help to keep me
active. 

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] Directory layout and webstart preparations

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

Neither do I.  
The only thing I know about Maven is that it has files called pom.xml all
over the place, so just don't expect me to say anything sensible about that
technology.
Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: brett lentz [mailto:bre...@gm...]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:17 PM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Directory layout and webstart preparations
> 
> I don't have any objections to this.
> 
> ---Brett.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote:
> > Brett and Erik:
> > in preparation of a rails2.0 alpha release (including webstart
> > hopefully), I want to change the directory layout of rails2.0.
> >
> > I already separated the test from the main code by introducing the two
> > main folders src/ and junit/.
> >
> > * The next step is to move to a structure which is similar to maven
> > (even if we keep ant as our build tool I think the directory structure
> > is not worse than any other and it makes it easier to move to maven if
> > we want to do so)
> >
> > The structure is the following:
> >
> > http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standa
> > rd-directory-layout.html
> >
> > * The other thing I want to fix is the standard Java directory layout
> > in which the namespace is mirrored by directories: I propose to change
> > rails/ into net/sf/rails.
> >
> > Combined the changes will be:
> >
> > A) Move code from src/rails to src/main/java/net/sf/rails
> > B) Move files from src/tiles and src/data to src/main/resources/...
> > C) Move jars in lib from src/lib to src/main/resources/...
> > D) Move code from junit/rails to src/test/java/net/sf/rails
> > E) Move code from src/test to src/test/java/net/sf/rails/test
> > F) Move files from src/test/data to src/test/resources/...
> > G) Keep readme and other files at top-level directory
> >
> > I would also add a basic pom.xml at the top-level directory.
> >
> > Any objections to that?
> >
> > I know that it might not so easy to navigate around (at least on the
> > command line), but it is close to the standards.
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------- Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy
> > New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know
> > exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and
> > .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd
> > shirt too!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is
> happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic
> at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

Re: [Rails-devel] Directory layout and webstart preparations

[brett l. <bre...@gm...>]

I don't have any objections to this.

---Brett.

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote:
> Brett and Erik:
> in preparation of a rails2.0 alpha release (including webstart
> hopefully), I want to change the directory layout of rails2.0.
>
> I already separated the test from the main code by introducing the two
> main folders src/ and junit/.
>
> * The next step is to move to a structure which is similar to maven
> (even if we keep ant as our build tool I think the directory structure
> is not worse than any other and it makes it easier to move to maven if
> we want to do so)
>
> The structure is the following:
>
> http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standard-directory-layout.html
>
> * The other thing I want to fix is the standard Java directory layout in
> which the namespace is mirrored by directories: I propose to change
> rails/ into net/sf/rails.
>
> Combined the changes will be:
>
> A) Move code from src/rails to src/main/java/net/sf/rails
> B) Move files from src/tiles and src/data to src/main/resources/...
> C) Move jars in lib from src/lib to src/main/resources/...
> D) Move code from junit/rails to src/test/java/net/sf/rails
> E) Move code from src/test to src/test/java/net/sf/rails/test
> F) Move files from src/test/data to src/test/resources/...
> G) Keep readme and other files at top-level directory
>
> I would also add a basic pom.xml at the top-level directory.
>
> Any objections to that?
>
> I know that it might not so easy to navigate around (at least on the
> command line), but it is close to the standards.
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel

[Rails-devel] Directory layout and webstart preparations

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Brett and Erik:
in preparation of a rails2.0 alpha release (including webstart 
hopefully), I want to change the directory layout of rails2.0.

I already separated the test from the main code by introducing the two 
main folders src/ and junit/.

* The next step is to move to a structure which is similar to maven 
(even if we keep ant as our build tool I think the directory structure 
is not worse than any other and it makes it easier to move to maven if 
we want to do so)

The structure is the following:

http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standard-directory-layout.html

* The other thing I want to fix is the standard Java directory layout in 
which the namespace is mirrored by directories: I propose to change 
rails/ into net/sf/rails.

Combined the changes will be:

A) Move code from src/rails to src/main/java/net/sf/rails
B) Move files from src/tiles and src/data to src/main/resources/...
C) Move jars in lib from src/lib to src/main/resources/...
D) Move code from junit/rails to src/test/java/net/sf/rails
E) Move code from src/test to src/test/java/net/sf/rails/test
F) Move files from src/test/data to src/test/resources/...
G) Keep readme and other files at top-level directory

I would also add a basic pom.xml at the top-level directory.

Any objections to that?

I know that it might not so easy to navigate around (at least on the 
command line), but it is close to the standards.

Stefan

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

[Stefan F. <ste...@we...>]

Erik:
were you able to proceed?

I am using git push origin rails2.0 to push only rails2.0
and git push origin to push all.

What Brett is suggesting is to define an alias command:

e.g.
git-config alias.pushAll push origin
git-config alias.pushTwo push origin rails2.0

My experience with pushing is that is harder to get the push done, 
instead of pushing bad things. And even if you, it is easy to fix, just 
complain and either Brett or I will step in.

I did a few hundreds of cherry-picks with conflicts already and had not 
one bad experience so far with git. Even if everything gets messed up it 
is easy to redo (or to fix with rebase --interactive).

Stefan


On 10/06/2012 07:58 PM, Erik Vos wrote:
>>> remote.origin.push=refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master
>>
>> This line isn't needed. A better way (imo) would be to set an alias.
>>
>> But it's also functionally equivalent to "git push origin master"
>
> I don't trust myself remembering that every time.
>
> What I want is to have 'git push' upload just the one (maybe two) branch(es)
> with which I work, or into which I merge my local branches.
> All my own local branches that do not exist in the remote repo should be
> excluded from uploading.
> I want just the simple 'git push' do that, as it does now, because the
> current configuration makes me push 'master' only.
>
> How can I set that up without 'remote.origin.push'?
>
> Erik.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
> Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly
> what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app
> Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
>

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

[brett l. <bre...@gm...>]

On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:
>> > remote.origin.push=refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master
>>
>> This line isn't needed. A better way (imo) would be to set an alias.
>>
>> But it's also functionally equivalent to "git push origin master"
>
> I don't trust myself remembering that every time.
>

It's a learning process. The more you work with it, the easier it becomes. :-)

> What I want is to have 'git push' upload just the one (maybe two) branch(es)
> with which I work, or into which I merge my local branches.
> All my own local branches that do not exist in the remote repo should be
> excluded from uploading.
> I want just the simple 'git push' do that, as it does now, because the
> current configuration makes me push 'master' only.
>
> How can I set that up without 'remote.origin.push'?
>

That's the default behavior. "Git push" doesn't blindly upload
everything. It only syncs the branches that you've selected as remote
tracking branches. Everything else stays local. This is why the
typical git workflow is to use lots of local branches that you merge
to master when a particular feature is ready.

So, in your current config, a git push would only consider master,
because it's the only remote-tracking branch that's checked out.


> Erik.
>
>

---Brett.

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

> > remote.origin.push=refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master
> 
> This line isn't needed. A better way (imo) would be to set an alias.
> 
> But it's also functionally equivalent to "git push origin master"

I don't trust myself remembering that every time.  

What I want is to have 'git push' upload just the one (maybe two) branch(es)
with which I work, or into which I merge my local branches.
All my own local branches that do not exist in the remote repo should be
excluded from uploading.  
I want just the simple 'git push' do that, as it does now, because the
current configuration makes me push 'master' only.

How can I set that up without 'remote.origin.push'?

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

[brett l. <bre...@gm...>]

On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:
> Brett,
>
>> "git fetch" is all you need. It will fetch all changesets across all
> remote
>> branches.
>
> I think you have overlooked this remark of mine:
>>> Please note, that I have configured the bare
>> > 'git push'/'git pull' to transmit branch 'master' only.+
> ...which also applies to git fetch.
>
>> Once you do a fetch or pull without arguments, it should pull down
>> references to any branches you're missing.
>
> No, and that is not what I had always intended either, see above. I don't
> want branches that I'm not interested in.  I want to keep it simple.  I
> guess that's unusual...
>

It is unusual and also a bit unnecessary. Git is extremely efficient
at what it does, so this sort of thing, as you're finding out, will
cause more problems than it solves.


>> If this fails, can you show what "git config --list" and "git branch -r"
> shows?
>
> git config -l:
>
> core.symlinks=false
> core.autocrlf=true
> color.diff=auto
> color.status=auto
> color.branch=auto
> color.interactive=true
> pack.packsizelimit=2g
> help.format=html
> http.sslcainfo=/bin/curl-ca-bundle.crt
> sendemail.smtpserver=/bin/msmtp.exe
> diff.astextplain.textconv=astextplain
> rebase.autosquash=true
> user.name=Erik Vos
> user.email=eri...@xs...
> branch.autosetuprebase=always
> core.repositoryformatversion=0
> core.filemode=false
> core.logallrefupdates=true
> core.autocrlf=false
> remote.origin.url=ssh://ev...@ra.../gitroot/rails/rails
> remote.origin.fetch=refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master

I recommend changing this to:

remote.origin.fetch=refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*

> remote.origin.push=refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master

This line isn't needed. A better way (imo) would be to set an alias.

But it's also functionally equivalent to "git push origin master"

> branch.master.remote=origin
> branch.master.merge=refs/heads/master
> branch.autosetuprebase=always
>
> git branch -r:
>
>   origin/master
>
> Thinking again, I might remove remote.origin.fetch, leaving
> remote.origin.push in place.
> Or can I add just a second branch?
>

You could, but I don't believe it's necessary. The whole '.git'
directory for rails is 32M, which includes all remote branches.
There's really not much (if any) savings in restricting your fetches
to just master. Remote branches don't really impact your local
repository if you don't check them out or track them in a local
branch.

> Erik.
>
>

---Brett.

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

Brett,

> "git fetch" is all you need. It will fetch all changesets across all
remote
> branches.

I think you have overlooked this remark of mine:
>> Please note, that I have configured the bare
> > 'git push'/'git pull' to transmit branch 'master' only.+
...which also applies to git fetch.

> Once you do a fetch or pull without arguments, it should pull down
> references to any branches you're missing.

No, and that is not what I had always intended either, see above. I don't
want branches that I'm not interested in.  I want to keep it simple.  I
guess that's unusual...

> If this fails, can you show what "git config --list" and "git branch -r"
shows?

git config -l:

core.symlinks=false
core.autocrlf=true
color.diff=auto
color.status=auto
color.branch=auto
color.interactive=true
pack.packsizelimit=2g
help.format=html
http.sslcainfo=/bin/curl-ca-bundle.crt
sendemail.smtpserver=/bin/msmtp.exe
diff.astextplain.textconv=astextplain
rebase.autosquash=true
user.name=Erik Vos
user.email=eri...@xs...
branch.autosetuprebase=always
core.repositoryformatversion=0
core.filemode=false
core.logallrefupdates=true
core.autocrlf=false
remote.origin.url=ssh://ev...@ra.../gitroot/rails/rails
remote.origin.fetch=refs/heads/master:refs/remotes/origin/master
remote.origin.push=refs/heads/master:refs/heads/master
branch.master.remote=origin
branch.master.merge=refs/heads/master
branch.autosetuprebase=always

git branch -r:

  origin/master

Thinking again, I might remove remote.origin.fetch, leaving
remote.origin.push in place.
Or can I add just a second branch?

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

[brett l. <bre...@gm...>]

On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:
>> Testing of Rails2.0 in development is already possible by fetching the git
>> branch.
>
> Trying to fetch Rails2.0, but no luck.
>
> What I have sorted out so far are the following commands:
>
> - git fetch origin rails2.0
> That seems to do something, although 'git branch -r' still only reports
> origin/master.
>

"git fetch" is all you need. It will fetch all changesets across all
remote branches.

> - git checkout -b rails2.0 origin/rails2.0
> That fails with the apparently well-known message "fatal: git checkout:
> updating paths is incompatible with switching branches. Did you intend...
> etc.".
> Adding --track does not help. Doing a 'git pull' first (an advice I found
> somewhere) does neither.
>
> What am I doing wrong?  Please note, that I have configured the bare 'git
> push'/'git pull' to transmit branch 'master' only.
> I don't have a local Rails2.0 branch yet, which I understand is the proper
> way to set it up this way.
>

Once you do a fetch or pull without arguments, it should pull down
references to any branches you're missing.

If this fails, can you show what "git config --list" and "git branch -r" shows?

> Erik.
>
>


---Brett

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

[Erik V. <eri...@xs...>]

> Testing of Rails2.0 in development is already possible by fetching the git
> branch.

Trying to fetch Rails2.0, but no luck.  

What I have sorted out so far are the following commands:

- git fetch origin rails2.0
That seems to do something, although 'git branch -r' still only reports
origin/master.

- git checkout -b rails2.0 origin/rails2.0
That fails with the apparently well-known message "fatal: git checkout:
updating paths is incompatible with switching branches. Did you intend...
etc.". 
Adding --track does not help. Doing a 'git pull' first (an advice I found
somewhere) does neither.

What am I doing wrong?  Please note, that I have configured the bare 'git
push'/'git pull' to transmit branch 'master' only. 
I don't have a local Rails2.0 branch yet, which I understand is the proper
way to set it up this way.

Erik.

Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

[Dr. M. B. <dr....@t-...>]

Hi Stefan,

i was and still am busy with other things in the moment. As soon as my time
permits I would like to continue but would prefer to work with someone else
on the finishing of 1880 :)


You said you need to understand the requirements of 1880 ? Perhaps I can
explain that to you either on or off the list.

Regards
Martin.

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 3. Oktober 2012 23:58
An: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
Betreff: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: (Almost) all of Rails 1.x merged

All commits of the Rails 1.x tree are now merged into the Rails2.0 branch
(this makes Rails2.0_merge obsolete and will be deleted soon).

So everyone (and especially the one-and-only Erik) is invited to start
coding against Rails2.0 from now on.

Major change so far are the revised classes/interfaces of the state/model
packages (see previous mails).

Current (known) issues soon to be fixed are:
* Undo/Redo in the UI is deactivated
* Some annoyance in the UI that items are referred by the id instead of the
name (e.g. a train called 3_3 instead of simply 3) (see next mail on
toText() methods)

The only exception are those commits that have been related to the started
implementation of 1880, before I can merge them I have to get a better
picture of the requirements, but this will be done soon.

Testing of Rails2.0 in development is already possible by fetching the git
branch.

I will release a alpha version as soon as I have enabled (or gave up on)
WebStart support (see separate mail for this).

Further roadmap:
* Start revised Round classes
* Use that to finish 1825
==> Release of Rails2.0
* Add tile lay allowance algorithm
* Support realtime-online play
==> Release of Rails2.1

Other plans (independent of releases)
* Improve ftf-play (no-map mode) with an optimized gui
* Finish 1880 (if not Martin continues his work there)

Stefan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM
Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is
happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at
no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Rails-devel mailing list
Rai...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel