Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update tf2.inc TFCond enums #474

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 6, 2016
Merged

Update tf2.inc TFCond enums #474

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 6, 2016

Conversation

Kenzzer
Copy link
Member

@Kenzzer Kenzzer commented Feb 6, 2016

I don't know the other conds before, but 114 is for the spawn outline.(added in gun mettle update).

@psychonic
Copy link
Member

Thanks.

@Kenzzer
Copy link
Member Author

Kenzzer commented Feb 6, 2016

Well I tried to find the conds before.
108 TFCond_EyeaductUnderworld, //On set give uber to client for 2sec, on removed give overheal, uber, crits, and print a server message "%Playername% has escaped the underworld!"
109 TFCond_KingRune
110 TFCond_PlagueRune
111 TFCond_SupernovaRune
112 TFCond_Plague
113 TFCond_KingAura
114 TFCond_SpawnOutline

KyleSanderson added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 6, 2016
@KyleSanderson KyleSanderson merged commit 76f33d2 into alliedmodders:master Feb 6, 2016
@powerlord
Copy link
Contributor

To be fair, 108-113 were in pull request #450 which was soft-rejected (because of the other changes I assume)

@KyleSanderson
Copy link
Member

@powerlord you keep saying we're soft rejecting PRs when they're incomplete. As always, if something is missed, you're absolutely free to message me. However, trolling around in PRs asking why they're soft rejected when they're not functional helps no one.

I don't get it.

@psychonic
Copy link
Member

Wtf

@powerlord
Copy link
Contributor

@KyleSanderson The other PR was incomplete? Last I checked, it had all the TFCond, TF_CUSTOM, and TF_WEAPON values that were added to the game prior to the time it was created.

No,@asherkin's comment were pretty clear about why it was being soft-rejected: it added secondary names to older TFCond values.

On a side note, I rarely comment on PRs, so I'm not sure where the "you keep saying" part is coming from.

@KyleSanderson
Copy link
Member

@powerlord below is the most obvious one. There's more from yourself on the board.
#30 (comment)

However, like the above comments, this doesn't belong here.

@psychonic
Copy link
Member

@KyleSanderson please stop picking fights

@FlaminSarge
Copy link
Contributor

Out of curiousity, why was this merged when it breaks consistency with the earlier 'Rune' condition names?

@Kenzzer
Copy link
Member Author

Kenzzer commented Mar 2, 2016

Ah really?.... Oh yes I see what you mean, I'm sorry, I didn't paid attention. Perhaps I or you could fix it for me?

@asherkin
Copy link
Member

asherkin commented Mar 2, 2016

It's about 23 days too late for that.

@FlaminSarge
Copy link
Contributor

w.r.t. #450 I'll move all the old names up to the top of the list or the bottom of the list and separate them from the FGD/internal names by a few lines, and with that I can also add TFCond_RuneKing/etc matching the other Rune names.

I was just wondering why this got merged in the first place without anybody bringing that up.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants