The stable-5.1 branch has been updated. Besides some bugfixes, notable additions are the Debian files, "minidump" generation for Windows, and Thunderous Skies. Suggestions for further patches from the unstable branch are welcome, as well as reasons why a patch shouldn't be in the stable branch. We'll probably release 5.1.2 in one or two weeks.
So I'd like to do the update this weekend, but I don't feel good about doing that without testing it first. How much work would it be to extend the nightly build automation to the stable branch? If it's too much, I'll run on or two testing rounds on Linux myself, but that's hardly comprehensive.
In other news, the bugfixes in the unstable branch mostly concern regressions in the unstable branch now, so there probably won't be a lot of further 5.1.x updates. Though perhaps we can add a few scenarios from people not currently in the development team? Are there any interesting ones?
In other news, the bugfixes in the unstable branch mostly concern regressions in the unstable branch now, so there probably won't be a lot of further 5.1.x updates. Though perhaps we can add a few scenarios from people not currently in the development team? Are there any interesting ones?
Sorry I have no time on the weekend to test. But the version to test would still be fetchable from here, right? http://hg.openclonk.org/openclonk/shortlog/stable-5.1
Are there ANY ones?
> Are there any interesting ones?
Are there ANY ones?
http://forum.openclonk.org/topic_show.pl?tid=693
but i dont know the scenario
but i dont know the scenario
> How much work would it be to extend the nightly build automation to the stable branch?
Not too much probably, but I can't guarantee to get it done this weekend. Also I don't feel comfortable in doubling the load on the server. Maybe I can make it so that it only attempts a build if something changed since the previous build.
This post is 29 days old... Hm.
And, If you take 22cbe7ea3de5 into the release, I could provide a dedicated server.
And, If you take 22cbe7ea3de5 into the release, I could provide a dedicated server.
Ah, you're volunteering to test the stable branch? Excellent! ;-)
That commit isn't enough to make the dedicated server work again. I think I've picked all necessary patches. I also picked the commit that is supposed to fix #484 and #493 (as well as the commit fixing the commit), and wrote a quick hack to make crews that were used with the unstable branch usable with the stable branch. Unless somebody finds a regression, I'll tag 5.1.2 the day after tomorrow. In the worst case we'll just have to do a 5.1.3 quickly.
That commit isn't enough to make the dedicated server work again. I think I've picked all necessary patches. I also picked the commit that is supposed to fix #484 and #493 (as well as the commit fixing the commit), and wrote a quick hack to make crews that were used with the unstable branch usable with the stable branch. Unless somebody finds a regression, I'll tag 5.1.2 the day after tomorrow. In the worst case we'll just have to do a 5.1.3 quickly.
I need this one, too: http://hg.openclonk.org/openclonk/rev/2564
Or actually, I just need
Or actually, I just need
diff -r 169df63ef8ba src/platform/StdTApp.cpp
--- a/src/platform/StdTApp.cpp Thu Feb 10 15:33:12 2011 +0100
+++ b/src/platform/StdTApp.cpp Fri Feb 11 15:10:35 2011 +0100
@@ -221,8 +221,8 @@
CStdWindow::CStdWindow() {}
CStdWindow::~CStdWindow() {}
void CStdWindow::FlashWindow() {}
-CStdWindow * CStdWindow::Init(CStdApp*) {return 0;}
-CStdWindow * CStdWindow::Init(CStdApp*, char const*, CStdWindow*, bool) {return 0;}
+CStdWindow * CStdWindow::Init(CStdApp*) {return this;}
+CStdWindow * CStdWindow::Init(CStdApp*, char const*, CStdWindow*, bool) {return this;}
bool CStdWindow::GetSize(RECT*) {return 0;}
bool CStdWindow::RestorePosition(char const*, char const*, bool) {return 0;}
void CStdWindow::SetSize(unsigned int, unsigned int) {}
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill