Revision 156 and 159 SVN

[InOverMyHead]

Can someone tell me what the changes are from 156 to 159?

[RavonTUS]

Greetings,

According to the logs...

Revision: 156
Author: asayre
Date: 12:35:13 AM, Friday, January 26, 2007
Message:
revealing hidden staff is a bad thing
----
Modified : /devel/Scripts/Items/Misc/EffectController.cs


Revision: 157
Author: asayre
Date: 3:21:13 AM, Saturday, February 10, 2007
Message:
CIDR's actually working would be nice.  That's what I get for assuming the output from a different func would be correct.
When banning checked accounts, it should only tag and comment the checked ones, not all of them in the list.
Optimizing firewall.
----
Modified : /devel/Scripts/Accounting/Firewall.cs
Modified : /devel/Scripts/Engines/Pathing/Movement.cs
Modified : /devel/Scripts/Gumps/AdminGump.cs
Modified : /devel/Server/Utility.cs


Revision: 158
Author: mark
Date: 12:30:33 AM, Sunday, February 11, 2007
Message:
stupid bug ive been too lazy to fix
----
Modified : /devel/Scripts/Commands/Generic/Implementors/BaseCommandImplementor.cs


Revision: 159
Author: asayre
Date: 5:15:14 PM, Sunday, February 11, 2007
Message:
OCD'ing over organization 
----
Modified : /devel/Server/Map.cs

-Ravon

[Zippy]

As Ravon pointed out, the whole point of SVN is that you don't have to ask this question. SVN has the answers.

If the log is not specific enough (like message 157 is blank) SVN can be used to "diff" the files to show you the exact changes, line by line.

If you're using TortoiseSVN, right click on the folder where you have RunUO checked out and go to TortoiseSVN>Show log. From there you can see the log messages and a list of files changed from revision to revision.

If you want to see the specific code changes, you can update your local copy and then use the slow log. Right click on the version you want to see changes after and select "Compare with working copy."

[David]

Granted I haven't been hard at it lately; but as a scriptor I keep my install at the current public release even though I know the SVN version would solve some problems I am having. It would be most welcome if the SVN could be bundled as RC2 sometime soon. (Not asking for a timeline... just say'n...)

[Brutus5000]

Why do you try to keep scripts compatible to a release that should not be used as a production system?

RC1 is public, right, but the current SVN "release" is also public. If you modify your scripts with every svn update, there will be less work over a long distance (at least there are not sooo many updates where you have to change something), because there are only small changes, but if you modify your scripts from RC1 to work with RC2 there will be a lot of work at once.

[Malaperth]

Why do you try to keep scripts compatible to a release that should not be used as a production system?

Well, in my thinking, there is a large difference between "should not be used" and 'not recommended', which is what the last message from the devs I saw mentioned. If noone uses the SVN versions for a production shard, or at the least, a test shard open to several people playing at once, the beta/testing phase will be infinitely longer. Also, I'm reasonably sure that when they said not recommended, it was more of a disclaimer so people didn't yell and scream if they lost user account info or something important.

Many people are using the SVN version(s) on production shards rather successfully and are the main source for bug reports etc.

[David]

Originally Posted by Brutus5000

Why do you try to keep scripts compatible to a release that should not be used as a production system?

Writing scripts for 1.0 makes less sense than writing them for a transient level of a work in progress.

There are certainly a lot of people using 2.0 RC1 on production shards, but I think the majority of them will not be using the SVN releases. It makes no sense to me to code against the SVN when my target users are running RC1.

If I have any expectations at all of people finding my scripts useful I must code against the lowest common level which most people will be using. As each new RC becomes available I will review my scripts and either issue an update or a notation that no update is required.

[InOverMyHead]

I didn't get a log with 156 and I didn't use tortoise svn. I can't get it to work.
Every time I click on the 2 little dots above the folders I get a window that wants me to put in a user ID and password that doesn't work.
I downloaded all the files one at a time and I didn't see any log.

[jeremymcc]

Originally Posted by David

Granted I haven't been hard at it lately; but as a scriptor I keep my install at the current public release even though I know the SVN version would solve some problems I am having. It would be most welcome if the SVN could be bundled as RC2 sometime soon. (Not asking for a timeline... just say'n...)

I'd like to agree with David. I'd like to see an RC2 come out sometime soon. It might help get more feedback about RunUO 2.0 in terms of bugs, improvements, etc. from the ones who don't know how to use the SVN, are just too lazy, or other. RunUO 2.0 is already pretty solid at this point so it probably wouldn't hurt.

[Courageous]

Thirded, and what not. They should just take an SVN snapshot that they think is representative of "most recent stable" and make an RC out of it. I do not believe scripters should be constantly twiddling their scripts against SVN...

C//