IRC logs for #openttd.dev on OFTC at 2013-01-07
⏴ go to previous day
07:23:35 *** Zuu has joined #openttd.dev
13:56:10 *** ntoskrnl has joined #openttd.dev
16:49:30 *** frosch123 has joined #openttd.dev
16:49:30 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v frosch123
17:17:47 *** Zuu has joined #openttd.dev
19:08:09 *** Alberth has joined #openttd.dev
19:08:09 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v Alberth
19:29:24 *** Supercheese has joined #openttd.dev
22:29:51 *** Alberth has left #openttd.dev
22:50:47 <Zuu> When I confirm a bug that exist in both trunk and current stable, should I put "reported version" as trunk or the current stable version?
22:51:41 <planetmaker> as it means it need be backported
22:54:12 <Zuu> I half-guessed that but was not really sure.
22:54:35 <planetmaker> just my out-of-hat justification. Not sure there's an official rule really
22:54:57 <Zuu> I'll add a comment too. But getting the metadata right helps when searching.
23:30:26 <Zuu> FS#5419 is about GS:es trying to output -1 (or any negative value) using {NUM}. Actually the buggy code as far as I can see is located when integer parameters are parsed to string in the API code. (I don't yet understand why it turns all parameters to string already here and not later in the string engine) So as far as I understand the code, if there were negative IDs of things (vehicles, cargos, etc) then those would also be affected by the
23:30:27 <Zuu> bug. However as our IDs are usually unsigned, we don't see this bug other than when script authors decide to use negative values in eg. {NUM}.
23:31:13 <Zuu> Though, I think I'll save concluding if my fix is the right one or not for another time. It's getting late.
23:32:16 <Zuu> It work with passing -1 to {NUM}, but I've not verified that my fix doesn't have any unwanted side effects.
continue to next day ⏵