Source-Forge and how to get your copy

**bovi** · 10-04-2007, 00:08

I didn't measure the download speed, just noticed that the EB serves at least 6-7 times the speed. It doesn't matter though. It gets down eventually.

Which version of M2TW is this mod for BTW? You may notice that there's a placeholder field in the guide I posted.

**alpaca** · 10-04-2007, 09:07

Originally Posted by bovi

I didn't measure the download speed, just noticed that the EB serves at least 6-7 times the speed. It doesn't matter though. It gets down eventually.

Which version of M2TW is this mod for BTW? You may notice that there's a placeholder field in the guide I posted.

1.2 and 1.3 seem to be pretty identical, I'd say 1.2 or higher or something

From what I heard (or rather didn't hear) so far, Kingdoms seems to be downwards compatible so you can use the kingdoms.exe, too. It's currently for 1.2 anyways.

Thanks for compiling that guide by the way, I was just about to do it when I saw you already posted one.

**bovi** · 10-04-2007, 12:44

It was a simple enough task to adapt the EB guide

.

Instead, you can create a so-called patch file.

I hope you know what you're doing here. You personally will get lots of work to manage this (depending on the rate submissions come in, of course). While I'm not entirely sure how the patch system works, I think you'll also have to manage concurrent updates, merging submissions from several people manually, which SVN otherwise would do automatically. I hope I'm mistaken though. The patch system might understand which changes are made from the revision in question, rather than overwrite any changes made by others when a new file is patched in.

**alpaca** · 10-04-2007, 17:37

Originally Posted by bovi

It was a simple enough task to adapt the EB guide

.

I hope you know what you're doing here. You personally will get lots of work to manage this (depending on the rate submissions come in, of course). While I'm not entirely sure how the patch system works, I think you'll also have to manage concurrent updates, merging submissions from several people manually, which SVN otherwise would do automatically. I hope I'm mistaken though. The patch system might understand which changes are made from the revision in question, rather than overwrite any changes made by others when a new file is patched in.

As I understood it the patch system takes into account the revision the patch was generated for. I know it's more work but, well, I don't expect we'll have too many people doing small things in the files themselves. If it's a large bunch of stuff applying patches doesn't happen so often and if it's a regular participant he can request write access which will of course make things easier.
The reason why I don't want anonymous write access is that often enough people don't properly test what they do and then I have to revert the head revision, etc.

I'll check if it's possible to create an anonymously writable branch which would probably be the best solution - if somebody screws something there it at least doesn't disturb other people's work on the current revision.

**bovi** · 10-05-2007, 00:24

Anonymous access to only parts should work fine, at least you can specify access for each folder when using svnserve. Not sure about sourceforge but highly likely.

**alpaca** · 10-05-2007, 08:51

Originally Posted by bovi

Anonymous access to only parts should work fine, at least you can specify access for each folder when using svnserve. Not sure about sourceforge but highly likely.

The problem is that I don't think I can access the config files for the project. I'll write to the SF staff.

It's possible with CVS anyways I think.