Thanks! You missed one or two things, though. See D3752 (and verify I didn't make mistakes).

(For the record, D3150 / rP25123 was what caused the conflict; had that one be committed a day later or this one a day earlier, everything would have been fine.)

All good now?

Fixed, but original auditor inactive now.

So you removed attack from turrets, why is it bad to allow another units to garrison?
Why then should be able infantry to garrison when they (tower) cant shoot arrows anyway?
How is infantry more suitable to be able to hide from attacks in these towers as there is no other purpose currenlty for them to be garrisoned and not support units which has poor attack/defense capabilities copmared to infantry?

In rP25135#53499, @Angen wrote:

So you removed attack from turrets, why is it bad to allow another units to garrison?
Why then should be able infantry to garrison when they (tower) cant shoot arrows anyway?
How is infantry more suitable to be able to hide from attacks in these towers as there is no other purpose currenlty for them to be garrisoned and not support units which has poor attack/defense capabilities copmared to infantry?

I believe the purpose is that archers can go on top of the walls, and the intention was to change turrets to do that (but that required art). However, allowing ranged infantry but not melee infantry to garrison seemed inconvenient.

However, allowing women in meant that you could just plop a wall turret and have a very convenient anti-raid spot, which was deemed bad.

All in all, I think we might need to rework walls further a bit anyways.