From leaf at real-time.com Sun Jul 7 01:48:46 2013 From: leaf at real-time.com (Rick Tanner) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 01:48:46 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] SVN write access to Kevin Zheng Message-ID: <51D90F4E.40600@real-time.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello everyone, Kevin Zheng has contributed a number of patches to maps that have been added and accepted to the Crossfire code base. He now has the necessary access and permissions to directly contribute code changes. Kevin - thank you for all your work and contributions. Welcome aboard the project! - - Rick Tanner leaf at real-time.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFR2Q9OhHyvgBp+vH4RAthFAJ9J3ngli2dtpNH/gg1AsaykBwiZcwCg0bGk WtcNXJMgPli6xcv/SCwMCzE= =1Z8N -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From nicolas.weeger at laposte.net Sun Jul 7 03:22:58 2013 From: nicolas.weeger at laposte.net (Nicolas Weeger) Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 10:22:58 +0200 Subject: [crossfire] SVN write access to Kevin Zheng In-Reply-To: <51D90F4E.40600@real-time.com> References: <51D90F4E.40600@real-time.com> Message-ID: <201307071023.03651.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Hello. > Kevin Zheng has contributed a number of patches to maps that have been > added and accepted to the Crossfire code base. > > He now has the necessary access and permissions to directly contribute > code changes. > > Kevin - thank you for all your work and contributions. Welcome aboard > the project! Thanks Rick for the "administrative" handling, and welcome on the team Kevin. :) Nicolas -- Mon p'tit coin du web - http://nicolas.weeger.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 490 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From kevinz5000 at gmail.com Sun Jul 7 09:17:36 2013 From: kevinz5000 at gmail.com (Kevin Zheng) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:17:36 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] SVN write access to Kevin Zheng In-Reply-To: <201307071023.03651.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> References: <51D90F4E.40600@real-time.com> <201307071023.03651.nicolas.weeger@laposte.net> Message-ID: <51D97880.6060909@gmail.com> On 07/07/13 03:22, Nicolas Weeger wrote: >> Kevin Zheng has contributed a number of patches to maps that have >> been added and accepted to the Crossfire code base. >> >> He now has the necessary access and permissions to directly >> contribute code changes. >> >> Kevin - thank you for all your work and contributions. Welcome >> aboard the project! > > Thanks Rick for the "administrative" handling, and welcome on the > team Kevin. :) Hi there, I'm very excited to be part of a wonderful project that has already sucked many hours of my life as an unsuspecting player in the enormous world of Crossfire. Now I look forward to spending many more to improve the game experience for everyone. As I'm still fairly new to the project, everyone is encouraged to review my commits and make changes/give feedback. Many thanks to Rick Tanner and Nicolas Weeger for dealing with my ugly patches in the past. Thanks, Kevin Zheng From kevinz5000 at gmail.com Mon Jul 15 21:54:51 2013 From: kevinz5000 at gmail.com (Kevin Zheng) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:54:51 +0800 Subject: [crossfire] Updating source file headers Message-ID: <51E4B5FB.1060202@gmail.com> Hi there, While poking around the sources, I realized that the headers scattered around just about every source file need a bit of updating. Here are some of the changes that I think should be made: 1. Let's update the header to be slightly more descriptive. While there are many multiplayer games that aren't for X windows, there are even more that are. 2. Bumping the copyright dates seems to be a good idea. According to SVN, every year from 1999-2013 is a "copyrightable" year, so why not update the headers to reflect that? The copyright is applied to the project as a whole, not individual source files (based on my limited knowledge of copyright law). 3. New comment style for the header. It tries to be more consistent with headers I've seen out in the wild. There isn't really any reason for the change other than "I like it more." 4. Maybe we can shorten the 3-paragraph GPL license? Instead, we throw them into a top level file called LICENSE and tell users to look at that instead. The GPLv2 usage instructions verify that this is a viable alternative. 5. Take the $Id$ keyword out of the rcsid array if it's not being used. We can put it as a one line comment right above/below the copyright statement. Alternatively, we don't include it altogether. Some of these changes may be more "controversial" than others, but I think these are good things to change. Comments/outright objections? Thanks, Kevin Zheng From mwedel at sonic.net Tue Jul 16 01:59:11 2013 From: mwedel at sonic.net (Mark Wedel) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:59:11 -0700 Subject: [crossfire] Updating source file headers In-Reply-To: <51E4B5FB.1060202@gmail.com> References: <51E4B5FB.1060202@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51E4EF3F.5030600@sonic.net> On 07/15/13 07:54 PM, Kevin Zheng wrote: > Hi there, > > While poking around the sources, I realized that the headers scattered > around just about every source file need a bit of updating. Here are > some of the changes that I think should be made: > > 1. Let's update the header to be slightly more descriptive. While there > are many multiplayer games that aren't for X windows, there are even > more that are. I think that is fair (although, I think you meant to say that we should not say that X-windows is the key point, although what you say above doesn't quite match that) Follow up question would be what should the short synopsis of the game be? "Crossfire, a multiplayer graphical RPG game"? It could also be reasonable that the comment be different based on component, eg, the server might make mention it is the server component, while the client might make mention it is the client (and in particular the GTK might mention it is the GTK only client, etc). > > 2. Bumping the copyright dates seems to be a good idea. According to > SVN, every year from 1999-2013 is a "copyrightable" year, so why not > update the headers to reflect that? The copyright is applied to the > project as a whole, not individual source files (based on my limited > knowledge of copyright law). I'm no lawyer either. I know at work, the copyright year is only updated when the file is changed, but I don't know if that is for legal reasons or not (and whether it being closed source also makes a difference). I'm also not sure the copyright status with a date that predates the existence of the file (eg, if the file was added in 2010, whether you can say copyright 1999-2013 on that file or not) In the past, whenever I made a change to a file, I updated the copyright if it was out of date. The one reason not to update the copyright files is that it just create SVN/log churn. That is to say, at the start of every year, every file would get checked in with just a change in copyright year. From what I have seen, other open source projects don't do that (I've sometime gone long whiles between updates, and there are still files not modified in those projects). It also means that source browsers or otherwise browsing different versions of a file mean that you have a version with no actual change in any way. That said, I think I was about the only person that ever updated the copyright information, so I'm not sure if just better process to get developers to update it as they make changes would help (at work, there are actually checks done to make sure copyright is updated appropriate, but it also does thing like style checks and a bunch of other checks). I suppose if we cared enough, one could probably make a pre checkin hook that checks for current copyright year. > > 3. New comment style for the header. It tries to be more consistent with > headers I've seen out in the wild. There isn't really any reason for the > change other than "I like it more." Can you give an example of this header? > > 4. Maybe we can shorten the 3-paragraph GPL license? Instead, we throw > them into a top level file called LICENSE and tell users to look at that > instead. The GPLv2 usage instructions verify that this is a viable > alternative. I'm fine with that. > > 5. Take the $Id$ keyword out of the rcsid array if it's not being used. > We can put it as a one line comment right above/below the copyright > statement. Alternatively, we don't include it altogether. I'm fine with that - if the array wasn't actually commented out, it could actually be useful, but in current source, even that isn't really true anymore (the svn version is sufficient to know what version of the server is, and if someone starts going around mixing different versions of different files, chances are having the actual version of those files embedded wouldn't help out anyways). I suspect that is much more a carryover from the (very old) RCS days (and perhaps CVS - can't remember) where there really was not a single version to embed into the file, so instead each file would have its own version and by dumping that info out, you could effectively figure out how old/new a particular instance was. Now days, I can't really imagine that string being used for much. From kevinz5000 at gmail.com Tue Jul 16 09:08:18 2013 From: kevinz5000 at gmail.com (Kevin Zheng) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:08:18 +0800 Subject: [crossfire] Updating source file headers In-Reply-To: <51E4EF3F.5030600@sonic.net> References: <51E4B5FB.1060202@gmail.com> <51E4EF3F.5030600@sonic.net> Message-ID: <51E553D2.10006@gmail.com> On 07/16/2013 14:59, Mark Wedel wrote: > I think that is fair (although, I think you meant to say that we should > not say that X-windows is the key point, although what you say above > doesn't quite match that) > > Follow up question would be what should the short synopsis of the game > be? "Crossfire, a multiplayer graphical RPG game"? You read me perfectly; X-windows isn't the selling point. As for the synopsis, that's something that everybody should sit down and think about. There are various short descriptions scattered around the sources and websites, but I think it's a good idea to re-figure a solid description of what Crossfire is exactly (no easy task). > It could also be reasonable that the comment be different based on > component, eg, the server might make mention it is the server component, > while the client might make mention it is the client (and in particular > the GTK might mention it is the GTK only client, etc). That's perfectly fine. > I'm no lawyer either. I know at work, the copyright year is only > updated when the file is changed, but I don't know if that is for legal > reasons or not (and whether it being closed source also makes a > difference). > > I'm also not sure the copyright status with a date that predates the > existence of the file (eg, if the file was added in 2010, whether you > can say copyright 1999-2013 on that file or not) > > In the past, whenever I made a change to a file, I updated the > copyright if it was out of date. I *think* the copyright applies to the work as a whole. In particular, the GPL suggests that projects with multiple sources say "This file is part of Foo". Maybe I'll have a look at other "big" projects and see how they do it? > The one reason not to update the copyright files is that it just create > SVN/log churn. That is to say, at the start of every year, every file > would get checked in with just a change in copyright year. From what I > have seen, other open source projects don't do that (I've sometime gone > long whiles between updates, and there are still files not modified in > those projects). It also means that source browsers or otherwise > browsing different versions of a file mean that you have a version with > no actual change in any way. No reason for churn, I was thinking that we change the headers along the way whenever somebody changes a source file for whatever reason. I don't see any reason for a pre-checkin hook; I don't think anyone cares about it that much :) > Can you give an example of this header? A tentative proposal is attached. Thanks, Kevin Zheng -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: newheader.c Type: text/x-csrc Size: 467 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kevinz5000 at gmail.com Tue Jul 30 10:16:10 2013 From: kevinz5000 at gmail.com (Kevin Zheng) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 23:16:10 +0800 Subject: [crossfire] Checking and ATM breakage Message-ID: <51F7D8BA.4050909@gmail.com> Hi there, I'm working on some cleanups to the banking-related code in Crossfire, specifically in 'python/IPO/banksay.py' and 'CFBank.py'. I've noticed that certain features (i.e. ATMs and checking) either are unstable or flatly refuse to work. It seems that 'banksay.py' tries to create a checkbook based on a template item in a hidden location on the bank map. In modern versions of the bank, this hidden items has been removed; in addition, so many different branches have opened that this is no longer a viable solution. I'm planning to hard-code the checkbook creation code in the bank script itself. Does this seem to be a good idea? Also, could somebody point me to a revision where the template stills exists? ('svn blame' isn't terribly helpful) Also, ATMs tend to steal your money unless you apply and unapply the deposit box twice, and sometimes that doesn't work. I propose to temporarily disable ATMs until I have a look at it. I have not yet committed my changes; I'm still tying up some loose ends and testing that everything is stable and backwards-compatible. Those interested in testing my work-in-progress can find a patch attached. Questions, concerns, comments, and hate mail are welcome. And yes, everything is in bite-sized commits (I use a local Git repo). Thanks, Kevin Zheng -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: patch-cfbank.diff Type: text/x-patch Size: 57269 bytes Desc: not available URL: From leaf at real-time.com Tue Jul 30 16:44:30 2013 From: leaf at real-time.com (Rick Tanner) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 16:44:30 -0500 Subject: [crossfire] Checking and ATM breakage In-Reply-To: <51F7D8BA.4050909@gmail.com> References: <51F7D8BA.4050909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51F833BE.4010101@real-time.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/30/13 10:16 AM, Kevin Zheng wrote: > > Also, could somebody point me to a revision where the template > stills exists? ('svn blame' isn't terribly helpful) As I recall, the Scorn bank was the first map to use the banking script. So, perhaps one of these updates? r2352 - - add tellers to these banks hooked to python banking scripts r3899 - - Update of the maps for CFPython version 2.0. Update of the IPO-related scripts. r13582 - - updated bank script to handle checks and added a startup script to build a list of face number to face name -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iD8DBQFR+DO9hHyvgBp+vH4RAkkZAKCqXj8ix+XprV9LAVr2ZiKoKPZTdwCgqnHc PLre0BvmzcPGIsr3KByowmo= =Iw+D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From meflin at meflin.net Tue Jul 30 16:47:58 2013 From: meflin at meflin.net (meflin at meflin.net) Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:47:58 -0600 Subject: [crossfire] Checking and ATM breakage In-Reply-To: <51F7D8BA.4050909@gmail.com> References: <51F7D8BA.4050909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1967068.CH3H5nTSVz@meflin.dyndns.org> We should get together to check the code on invidious. The original author worked on invidious and then disapeared. There could be more up to date versions to base the work on. Meflin On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:16:10 PM Kevin Zheng wrote: > Hi there, > > I'm working on some cleanups to the banking-related code in Crossfire, > specifically in 'python/IPO/banksay.py' and 'CFBank.py'. I've noticed > that certain features (i.e. ATMs and checking) either are unstable or > flatly refuse to work. > > It seems that 'banksay.py' tries to create a checkbook based on a > template item in a hidden location on the bank map. In modern versions > of the bank, this hidden items has been removed; in addition, so many > different branches have opened that this is no longer a viable solution. > I'm planning to hard-code the checkbook creation code in the bank script > itself. Does this seem to be a good idea? Also, could somebody point me > to a revision where the template stills exists? ('svn blame' isn't > terribly helpful) > > Also, ATMs tend to steal your money unless you apply and unapply the > deposit box twice, and sometimes that doesn't work. I propose to > temporarily disable ATMs until I have a look at it. > > I have not yet committed my changes; I'm still tying up some loose ends > and testing that everything is stable and backwards-compatible. Those > interested in testing my work-in-progress can find a patch attached. > Questions, concerns, comments, and hate mail are welcome. And yes, > everything is in bite-sized commits (I use a local Git repo). > > Thanks, > Kevin Zheng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevinz5000 at gmail.com Tue Jul 30 20:52:24 2013 From: kevinz5000 at gmail.com (Kevin Zheng) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:52:24 +0800 Subject: [crossfire] Checking and ATM breakage In-Reply-To: <51F833BE.4010101@real-time.com> References: <51F7D8BA.4050909@gmail.com> <51F833BE.4010101@real-time.com> Message-ID: <51F86DD8.5010302@gmail.com> On 07/31/2013 05:44, Rick Tanner wrote: > As I recall, the Scorn bank was the first map to use the banking > script. So, perhaps one of these updates? > > r2352 - add tellers to these banks hooked to python banking > scripts > > r3899 - Update of the maps for CFPython version 2.0. Update of > the IPO-related scripts. > > r13582 - updated bank script to handle checks and added a startup > script to build a list of face number to face name After pulling these revisions it seems that checking hasn't been implemented yet. I did a quick check on Metalforge (which advertises itself as r17660) and found that checking hasn't been implemented, either. I'll start a bisecting search and see what turns up. Thanks, Kevin Zheng From kevinz5000 at gmail.com Wed Jul 31 19:55:58 2013 From: kevinz5000 at gmail.com (Kevin Zheng) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 08:55:58 +0800 Subject: [crossfire] Checking and ATM breakage In-Reply-To: <14804501.zEj2NviEnC@meflin.dyndns.org> References: <51F7D8BA.4050909@gmail.com> <1967068.CH3H5nTSVz@meflin.dyndns.org> <51F86E61.1070904@gmail.com> <14804501.zEj2NviEnC@meflin.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <51F9B21E.1040204@gmail.com> On 08/01/2013 01:55, meflin at meflin.net wrote: > All of the data from invidious is now on invidious2. I doubt Alestan > checked in every thing he was working on (checking ATM python guilds). > If your on irc its quite easy to get you acess to the crossfire account. > Sadly the code base on invidious2 vs SVN is quite messy. I've verified that the 'checks' command works as expected on invidous2. I haven't been able to test other aspects of checking, though. I think we should figure out how to start merging the working directory on invidous2 into the development repo. Perhaps stick the mess into a separate branch while we work out which changes are ready? For now, could you please send a copy of the Scorn Bank (scorn/shops/bank) and the bank script (python/IPO/banksay.py)? Thanks, Kevin Zheng