Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:22 AM, bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
I would think they would want 2.2 for the FMVs, and the improved path
finding, and they can play 2.1 for.. um... {insert a reason here}
I think that sounds like a reasonable compromise solution. How soon
can the FMV patch be committed? I also need to fix some (smaller)
radar issues in campaign (although this can wait until next 2.2
snapshot).
Also, if we release something directly from trunk without creating a
release branch for it, I think we should not call it a beta. Let's
call it an alpha-1 release. (I do not think we want to maintain two
release branches at the moment.)
- Per
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
bugs buggy schreef: On 9/24/08, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: bugs buggy schreef: On 9/22/08, Freddie Witherden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not a good use of developer time -- which could be better spent on 2.2 -- ensuring that we never get into this situation again. This about sums it up. Developer time is short, so we need to do what will be best for developers. The whole predicament of not having a release for such a long period of time *IS* the problem. So we agree on the problem: we need a release soon. The difference is that I think we can get 2.1 out faster than we can get 2.2 out. I don't really know what you mean by getting 2.1 faster out the door than 2.2. We would have to do the same thing for 2.1 beta 5, or 2.2 alpha/beta 1. Just tag them, and compile it, and then have the build bot create it right? That takes care of windows. For 2.2 from trunk we'd have to get rid of several changes to keep those out of a release for now. E.g. the SQLite stuff as it's only half done, and I don't intend to maintain that stuff when it's only half finished. There may be more things that require ripping out before release. If you were thinking, to remove features from 2.2 for the release, then I see no (good) reason you should do that. We *want* to know all the issues involved with 2.2 (trunk). Allowing features to enter also means obligating ourselves to maintain them. Read above for SQLite... We do *not* want to have a repeat of beta 4 again, we do *not* want to wait many months to find out that someone made something worse, and then they have no time to fix the faulty patch now. We *do* want as many testers as possible. Agreed, but some code could be considered too experimental for release (but stable enough for trunk). I don't want to waste time on maintaining experimental code in a release. If it makes you feel better, we can do a multi-release. By that, I mean have a 2.1 beta 5, and have a 2.2 alpha/beta 1 release candidate. Sure, and AFAIK we can release 2.1_beta5 right now. I.e. take current 2.1 HEAD, tag it and release the tarballs (binaries would have to come in later). -- Giel signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Per Inge Mathisen schreef: Also, if we release something directly from trunk without creating a release branch for it, I think we should not call it a beta. Let's call it an alpha-1 release. (I do not think we want to maintain two release branches at the moment.) Actually I'd prefer not to release the current half finished state of the SQLite stats stuff, so it'd have to be removed before release. These kind of changes are easiest done in a release branch IMO. -- Giel signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 10:35:27 schrieb Zarel:
2008/9/25 bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
I would think they would want 2.2 for the FMVs, and the improved path
finding, and they can play 2.1 for.. um... {insert a reason here}
I vote it be called 2.2 beta 1. Trunk is at _least_ as stable as one
of the 2.1 betas.
In answer to all these emails from today: I generally agree with Giel, but:
Since everyone wants to see 2.2 now (where now=in a few months, but don't
tell anyone...), I go with Per's vote: Call it alpha1.
Also make clear that it is unmaintained at the moment, bugs are in it and lots
of stuff is not yet finished. Also please do not remove anything, since it
would just have to be added back later - mess.
And in case no one noticed: trunk *has* issues. I know at least one, since I
am the owner of a bug, which is caused by half-finished work due to time
constraints. (Which cannot be fixed before 1.5 months in the future, due to
the same time constraints.)
--Devu
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On 9/25/08, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 10:35:27 schrieb Zarel:
2008/9/25 bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
I would think they would want 2.2 for the FMVs, and the improved path
finding, and they can play 2.1 for.. um... {insert a reason here}
I vote it be called 2.2 beta 1. Trunk is at _least_ as stable as one
of the 2.1 betas.
In answer to all these emails from today: I generally agree with Giel, but:
Since everyone wants to see 2.2 now (where now=in a few months, but don't
tell anyone...), I go with Per's vote: Call it alpha1.
You mean a 'stable' release (with no alpha/beta prefix)? Alpha/Beta = now
in my book.
Also make clear that it is unmaintained at the moment, bugs are in it and
lots
of stuff is not yet finished. Also please do not remove anything, since it
would just have to be added back later - mess.
Unmaintained in what way? It still is going to be in Alpha/Beta stage, so
fixing bugs that crop up ARE going to be fixed. It is implied that a alpha
release needs more testing than a beta release anyway.
And in case no one noticed: trunk *has* issues. I know at least one, since I
am the owner of a bug, which is caused by half-finished work due to time
constraints. (Which cannot be fixed before 1.5 months in the future, due to
the same time constraints.)
Yes, and about that, would reverting be the best answer for this? (Though,
I am not sure it would be easy to revert, might be a can of worms like the
path finding) I don't think you know the future, so you will not be 100%
sure that you will be free in 1.5 months to work on it.
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On 9/25/08, Per Inge Mathisen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:22 AM, bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
I would think they would want 2.2 for the FMVs, and the improved path
finding, and they can play 2.1 for.. um... {insert a reason here}
I think that sounds like a reasonable compromise solution. How soon
can the FMV patch be committed? I also need to fix some (smaller)
radar issues in campaign (although this can wait until next 2.2
snapshot).
IMO, it could go in at any time.
Just waiting for mac input. I rather not stick it in trunk yet, until mac
people can at least compile it.
Also, if we release something directly from trunk without creating a
release branch for it, I think we should not call it a beta. Let's
call it an alpha-1 release. (I do not think we want to maintain two
release branches at the moment.)
Works for me.
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 19:24:01 schrieb bugs buggy:
On 9/25/08, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 10:35:27 schrieb Zarel:
2008/9/25 bugs buggy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
I would think they would want 2.2 for the FMVs, and the improved path
finding, and they can play 2.1 for.. um... {insert a reason here}
I vote it be called 2.2 beta 1. Trunk is at _least_ as stable as one
of the 2.1 betas.
In answer to all these emails from today: I generally agree with Giel,
but:
Since everyone wants to see 2.2 now (where now=in a few months, but
don't tell anyone...), I go with Per's vote: Call it alpha1.
You mean a 'stable' release (with no alpha/beta prefix)? Alpha/Beta =
now in my book.
A final release, yes. Target-point was that 2.2.0 is not going to come earlier
than 2.1.0... (Except if you skip 2.1.0, of course, but that's cheating. :P )
Also make clear that it is unmaintained at the moment, bugs are in it and
lots
of stuff is not yet finished. Also please do not remove anything, since
it would just have to be added back later - mess.
Unmaintained in what way? It still is going to be in Alpha/Beta stage, so
fixing bugs that crop up ARE going to be fixed. It is implied that a
alpha release needs more testing than a beta release anyway.
Unmaintained in a way that bugfixing has no priority (yet).
At least for me. I know things are broken, and I know that the situation might
change significantly after I have finished my work, so I will not start to
introduce workarounds for half-finished stuff.
And in case no one noticed: trunk *has* issues. I know at least one, since
I
am the owner of a bug, which is caused by half-finished work due to
time constraints. (Which cannot be fixed before 1.5 months in the future,
due to the same time constraints.)
Yes, and about that, would reverting be the best answer for this? (Though,
I am not sure it would be easy to revert, might be a can of worms like the
path finding) I don't think you know the future, so you will not be 100%
sure that you will be free in 1.5 months to work on it.
No, I do not know whether I have time in 1.5 months. But at least the chance
is more than 0%...
And I actually would like to finish my work. Unless there are big objections,
I would rather not hand it to someone else to finish...
As I said earlier, undoing the changes just to reintroduce them later sounds a
bit silly in my eyes. Reverting might prove more difficult than you might
initialy think, too. And it would make actual work (on the reverted features)
just more complicated (imo).
I'd just leave it broken and tell complaining users: ALPHA.
--Devu
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unmaintained in a way that bugfixing has no priority (yet). I can't believe you are saying that. Bug fixing should *always* have priority! Maybe I am starting to understand why we are in this mess now... At least for me. I know things are broken, and I know that the situation might change significantly after I have finished my work, so I will not start to introduce workarounds for half-finished stuff. ... No, I do not know whether I have time in 1.5 months. But at least the chance is more than 0%... And I actually would like to finish my work. Unless there are big objections, I would rather not hand it to someone else to finish... As I said earlier, undoing the changes just to reintroduce them later sounds a bit silly in my eyes. Reverting might prove more difficult than you might initialy think, too. And it would make actual work (on the reverted features) just more complicated (imo). Fair enough, but what you are saying is that we cannot put trunk on track for release at the moment. We absolutely cannot start a release process when there is a dependency on a work in progress that is delayed indefinitely. - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Am Donnerstag, 25. September 2008 21:36:49 schrieb Per Inge Mathisen: On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unmaintained in a way that bugfixing has no priority (yet). I can't believe you are saying that. Bug fixing should *always* have priority! Maybe I am starting to understand why we are in this mess now... You should consider removing commit rights from someone maybe... I know I have caused bugs in the past, and in the sad state I am in currently, I cannot fix the current ones either... (At least not for sure and in a way I would appreciate.) At least for me. I know things are broken, and I know that the situation might change significantly after I have finished my work, so I will not start to introduce workarounds for half-finished stuff. ... No, I do not know whether I have time in 1.5 months. But at least the chance is more than 0%... And I actually would like to finish my work. Unless there are big objections, I would rather not hand it to someone else to finish... As I said earlier, undoing the changes just to reintroduce them later sounds a bit silly in my eyes. Reverting might prove more difficult than you might initialy think, too. And it would make actual work (on the reverted features) just more complicated (imo). Fair enough, but what you are saying is that we cannot put trunk on track for release at the moment. We absolutely cannot start a release process when there is a dependency on a work in progress that is delayed indefinitely. In which case you'll either have to wait indefinitely (aka 1.5 months), or revert the stuff. Or try some workarounds. Buginator has some change to the behaviour of flamers which apparently make them not spread fire over the whole map anymore. Though it is unclear whether that fixes the underlying issue. Or revert the work entirely and let the revert be reverted later. (Which would require the least possible amount of changes to the affected code after the revertion.) --Devu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Per Inge Mathisen schreef: On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Freddie Witherden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still think that SQLite is the way to go, so far as future proofing goes. Going straight to tagfile makes it a lot harder to go to SQLite later on (two converters needed etc.). The advantages of a database are also numerous, firstly data abstraction and secondly in viewing/ using the data outside of Warzone (e.g for debugging purposes, as any SQLite viewer could be used). Perfection or progress - pick one. There ain't no such thing as perfection (i.e. not as an achievable goal). So if these are the options I pick the one that has the greatest chance at success: progress. I don't even see anyone working on the stats sqlite stuff for a long while. Time being the limiting factor. I'm currently drowning in school work, and honestly I don't expect that to change any sooner than several months from now. -- Giel signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
bugs buggy schreef: On 9/22/08, Freddie Witherden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not a good use of developer time -- which could be better spent on 2.2 -- ensuring that we never get into this situation again. This about sums it up. Developer time is short, so we need to do what will be best for developers. The whole predicament of not having a release for such a long period of time *IS* the problem. So we agree on the problem: we need a release soon. The difference is that I think we can get 2.1 out faster than we can get 2.2 out. -- Giel signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Hi Giel, On 24 Sep 2008, at 23:52, Giel van Schijndel wrote: Not supporting trunk savegames with 2.1_beta5 should IMO be *no* problem (i.e. no need to have forward compatibility). As for 2.1_beta4 savegames, what's the worst that could happen? People not upgrading to 2.1_beta5 (and incidentally 2.1)? Having them to wait for 2.2? How would that situation be any different from the scenario where we don't provide 2.1? People not upgrading undermines the whole purpose of releasing it. If we continue to devote time to backporting changes and fixes to the 2.1 branch then it is less time spent improving the 2.2 branch/trunk. Once something has been branched we want to work as little as possible on it -- the bare minimum. Extending the life-span of 2.1 (in an albeit crippled state, lacking beta4 save game functionality) means that we are still obligated to fix the 2.1 branch wherever possible. Should we not provide 2.1 then: - People do not get angry that their save games have broken; - we can get 2.2 out quicker; - we can give people *what they want*. IMO releasing 2.1 would only offer people a choice, and as long as we're clear on what we won't support I don't think we should face any serious trouble from 2.1. The problem is choice. Just because we explain that it will break save games doesn't mean that people will take any better to it. Should we not face any trouble from 2.1 it will more than likely be because no one is downloading/using it. Put simply we can not (easily) make 2.1 beta4 save games work with future 2.1 releases. We can, however, make them work with the newest version of trunk. It is silly to spend any more time on 2.1 -- it is clearly the inferior option. People value their saved games much more than you might think. Our efforts are better focused on 2.2. Regards, Freddie. PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On 9/24/08, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: bugs buggy schreef: On 9/22/08, Freddie Witherden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not a good use of developer time -- which could be better spent on 2.2 -- ensuring that we never get into this situation again. This about sums it up. Developer time is short, so we need to do what will be best for developers. The whole predicament of not having a release for such a long period of time *IS* the problem. So we agree on the problem: we need a release soon. The difference is that I think we can get 2.1 out faster than we can get 2.2 out. I don't really know what you mean by getting 2.1 faster out the door than 2.2. We would have to do the same thing for 2.1 beta 5, or 2.2 alpha/beta 1. Just tag them, and compile it, and then have the build bot create it right? That takes care of windows. For linux, all you do is a tarball anyway, so no real issue there. For macs, I dunno. I know the mac guys are busy, but I don't see a way around that, unless we have another mac guy that isn't as busy that can help out with compiles? If you were thinking, to remove features from 2.2 for the release, then I see no (good) reason you should do that. We *want* to know all the issues involved with 2.2 (trunk). We do *not* want to have a repeat of beta 4 again, we do *not* want to wait many months to find out that someone made something worse, and then they have no time to fix the faulty patch now. We *do* want as many testers as possible. If it makes you feel better, we can do a multi-release. By that, I mean have a 2.1 beta 5, and have a 2.2 alpha/beta 1 release candidate. That way, we can get more feedback on which version is 'better', and with the feedback, we can see pretty much see what we should do next. I really don't want to wait another week (or more) discussing what we are going to do, it is just a massive waste of time, and in the meantime, people are still using the crappy beta 4, and the same bugs keep getting reported again again, people keep asking about missing videos and so on. Release them both (ie, 2.1 beta 5 2.2 alpha/beta 1), and be done with it. :) ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On 9/24/08, Giel van Schijndel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO releasing 2.1 would only offer people a choice, and as long as we're
clear on what we won't support I don't think we should face any serious
trouble from 2.1.
Ok, lets do it.
Release 2.1 beta 5.
Release 2.2 alpha / beta 1.
Let them have a choice on which version they want to play.
I would think they would want 2.2 for the FMVs, and the improved path
finding, and they can play 2.1 for.. um... {insert a reason here}
___
Warzone-dev mailing list
Warzone-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Am Montag, 22. September 2008 04:32:13 schrieb bugs buggy: While this has been discussed before, I feel that we need more input from everyone, so I created a poll to see what the community thinks is the best course of action. This concerns if we should do a 2.1 beta 5, or skip 2.1 beta 5, and do a 2.2 beta 1. In either case, there must be another beta. I vote for 2.1_beta5 for the reasons stated earlier. We cannot release 2.2 just now. You are giving a wrong impression to the community... I *will* be full of bugs, several things may need to be removed if you want to start releasing it within the next one or two months, several things will not be finished till then, etc... So you need at least till December for a release, imo. Obviously not telling the community these things (in the question already, people are likely to click before they have read everything), and making them think 2.1 is crap, but we could get 2.2 just now resulted in those wrong votes. http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=6t=2188 The reasons have (more or less) already been discussed on this list already. But let me add that savegames are a very good debugging tool, and *if* we release a 2.1 beta 5 that will break savegames since beta 4, and trunk as well, there will be no easy way to load those games up, and see if the same issue is present in trunk or not. 2.1_beta5 would add the gateway section back to savegames, right? And that would make them unable to load in trunk? And in my latest rounds of debugging things, this would not be something I would like that much, in fact, I would hate it. With such a small, active, development crew working on this project, I rather we all concentrate our efforts on trunk, and rebase from that. You mean rebranch? --Devu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Hi Dennis/Buggy On 22 Sep 2008, at 09:27, Dennis Schridde wrote: Am Montag, 22. September 2008 04:32:13 schrieb bugs buggy: While this has been discussed before, I feel that we need more input from everyone, so I created a poll to see what the community thinks is the best course of action. This concerns if we should do a 2.1 beta 5, or skip 2.1 beta 5, and do a 2.2 beta 1. In either case, there must be another beta. I vote for 2.1_beta5 for the reasons stated earlier. We cannot release 2.2 just now. You are giving a wrong impression to the community... I *will* be full of bugs, several things may need to be removed if you want to start releasing it within the next one or two months, several things will not be finished till then, etc... So you need at least till December for a release, imo. Obviously not telling the community these things (in the question already, people are likely to click before they have read everything), and making them think 2.1 is crap, but we could get 2.2 just now resulted in those wrong votes. Betawidget and some of Giel's stat stuff will need to be removed. However, I have been playing it recently (as have quite a few others) and would not consider it much more buggy than 2.1. Try playing 2.1_beta4, it is quite poor so far as releases go. 2.1_beta5 is not going to go down well with people either if we break their save games (will probably cause them not to upgrade). http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=6t=2188 The reasons have (more or less) already been discussed on this list already. But let me add that savegames are a very good debugging tool, and *if* we release a 2.1 beta 5 that will break savegames since beta 4, and trunk as well, there will be no easy way to load those games up, and see if the same issue is present in trunk or not. 2.1_beta5 would add the gateway section back to savegames, right? And that would make them unable to load in trunk? They would be loadable in trunk. But anything created in 2.1_beta4 would not be loadable in 2.1_beta5 (although they would also work in trunk). Regards, Freddie. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Am Montag, 22. September 2008 10:51:15 schrieb Freddie Witherden: Hi Dennis/Buggy On 22 Sep 2008, at 09:27, Dennis Schridde wrote: Am Montag, 22. September 2008 04:32:13 schrieb bugs buggy: While this has been discussed before, I feel that we need more input from everyone, so I created a poll to see what the community thinks is the best course of action. This concerns if we should do a 2.1 beta 5, or skip 2.1 beta 5, and do a 2.2 beta 1. In either case, there must be another beta. I vote for 2.1_beta5 for the reasons stated earlier. We cannot release 2.2 just now. You are giving a wrong impression to the community... I *will* be full of bugs, several things may need to be removed if you want to start releasing it within the next one or two months, several things will not be finished till then, etc... So you need at least till December for a release, imo. Obviously not telling the community these things (in the question already, people are likely to click before they have read everything), and making them think 2.1 is crap, but we could get 2.2 just now resulted in those wrong votes. Betawidget and some of Giel's stat stuff will need to be removed. However, I have been playing it recently (as have quite a few others) and would not consider it much more buggy than 2.1. Try playing 2.1_beta4, it is quite poor so far as releases go. 2.1_beta5 is not going to go down well with people either if we break their save games (will probably cause them not to upgrade). That reminds me that we need some way to have backward compatibility somehow. Savegame-wise and whatever else might need it. At least so much as there is a simple way of conversion. Speaking of conversion: The only thing that makes =2.1_beta4 games not load in 2.1_beta4 is that the static gateway and zone information is missing? Can't we just copy that from the original map again? (In a conversion step, maybe as an external tool if necessary.) You may say, blahblah, it's just 2.1_beta5 and does not offer as many great things as 2.2 (which no one can tell me is going to arrive in the next week or even month). But we need some backward compatibility layer anyway, so we could use this as a testbed... http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=6t=2188 The reasons have (more or less) already been discussed on this list already. But let me add that savegames are a very good debugging tool, and *if* we release a 2.1 beta 5 that will break savegames since beta 4, and trunk as well, there will be no easy way to load those games up, and see if the same issue is present in trunk or not. 2.1_beta5 would add the gateway section back to savegames, right? And that would make them unable to load in trunk? They would be loadable in trunk. But anything created in 2.1_beta4 would not be loadable in 2.1_beta5 (although they would also work in trunk). So the point that 2.1_beta5 savegames will break again in 2.2 is simply misinformation? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Hi Dennis, On 22 Sep 2008, at 13:06, Dennis Schridde wrote: Try playing 2.1_beta4, it is quite poor so far as releases go. 2.1_beta5 is not going to go down well with people either if we break their save games (will probably cause them not to upgrade). That reminds me that we need some way to have backward compatibility somehow. Savegame-wise and whatever else might need it. At least so much as there is a simple way of conversion. The main problem is game.c. It makes creating new save game versions very difficult. Hence, the tagfile and SQLite proposals for save games. Speaking of conversion: The only thing that makes =2.1_beta4 games not load in 2.1_beta4 is that the static gateway and zone information is missing? Can't we just copy that from the original map again? (In a conversion step, maybe as an external tool if necessary.) It would be a lot of effort that would only be useful/used in beta5. Furthermore it would need a lot of bug-checking, perhaps more so than getting trunk 100% stable. You may say, blahblah, it's just 2.1_beta5 and does not offer as many great things as 2.2 (which no one can tell me is going to arrive in the next week or even month). But we need some backward compatibility layer anyway, so we could use this as a testbed... That is what game.c provides, albeit badly. 2.1_beta5 would add the gateway section back to savegames, right? And that would make them unable to load in trunk? They would be loadable in trunk. But anything created in 2.1_beta4 would not be loadable in 2.1_beta5 (although they would also work in trunk). So the point that 2.1_beta5 savegames will break again in 2.2 is simply misinformation? Guess so. Regards, Freddie. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Am Montag, 22. September 2008 15:29:09 schrieb Freddie Witherden: Hi Dennis, Hello Fred! On 22 Sep 2008, at 13:06, Dennis Schridde wrote: Try playing 2.1_beta4, it is quite poor so far as releases go. 2.1_beta5 is not going to go down well with people either if we break their save games (will probably cause them not to upgrade). That reminds me that we need some way to have backward compatibility somehow. Savegame-wise and whatever else might need it. At least so much as there is a simple way of conversion. The main problem is game.c. It makes creating new save game versions very difficult. Hence, the tagfile and SQLite proposals for save games. It's mainly copying the code, changing the version numbers, and changing the parts which are different, right? How far are the tagfile and database ideas? Any progress there? I know the tagfiles basically seem got stuck after the early phase of implementing the framework functions... Speaking of conversion: The only thing that makes =2.1_beta4 games not load in 2.1_beta4 is that the static gateway and zone information is missing? Can't we just copy that from the original map again? (In a conversion step, maybe as an external tool if necessary.) It would be a lot of effort that would only be useful/used in beta5. Furthermore it would need a lot of bug-checking, perhaps more so than getting trunk 100% stable. Better than leaving a out a release and letting the ship sink in the dream that the next release would come anywhere soon. You may say, blahblah, it's just 2.1_beta5 and does not offer as many great things as 2.2 (which no one can tell me is going to arrive in the next week or even month). But we need some backward compatibility layer anyway, so we could use this as a testbed... That is what game.c provides, albeit badly. So even if game.c sucks, why not use what we have for now? And do not forget to implement a better compatibility layer for 2.2+? --Devu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How far are the tagfile and database ideas? Any progress there? I know the tagfiles basically seem got stuck after the early phase of implementing the framework functions... There is a separate tagfile branch, which is very close to being able to load savegames from the new format. There is a crash I need to sort out, and the scripting stuff is not saved yet, which is the hardest part. This work got much lower priority after several people agreed that we should go with the sqlite idea instead. However, that idea has no code going for it yet, while tagfile is nearly there, so maybe I should reprioritize. - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Hey Dennis, On 22 Sep 2008, at 16:24, Dennis Schridde wrote: Am Montag, 22. September 2008 15:29:09 schrieb Freddie Witherden: Hi Dennis, Hello Fred! On 22 Sep 2008, at 13:06, Dennis Schridde wrote: Try playing 2.1_beta4, it is quite poor so far as releases go. 2.1_beta5 is not going to go down well with people either if we break their save games (will probably cause them not to upgrade). That reminds me that we need some way to have backward compatibility somehow. Savegame-wise and whatever else might need it. At least so much as there is a simple way of conversion. The main problem is game.c. It makes creating new save game versions very difficult. Hence, the tagfile and SQLite proposals for save games. It's mainly copying the code, changing the version numbers, and changing the parts which are different, right? More complex than that, I estimate that between 400-500 lines are required per 'version'. How far are the tagfile and database ideas? Any progress there? I know the tagfiles basically seem got stuck after the early phase of implementing the framework functions... Not too far along, they would both require weeks of work. Speaking of conversion: The only thing that makes =2.1_beta4 games not load in 2.1_beta4 is that the static gateway and zone information is missing? Can't we just copy that from the original map again? (In a conversion step, maybe as an external tool if necessary.) It would be a lot of effort that would only be useful/used in beta5. Furthermore it would need a lot of bug-checking, perhaps more so than getting trunk 100% stable. Better than leaving a out a release and letting the ship sink in the dream that the next release would come anywhere soon. To support save games with and without zones would be a massive undertaking. It would be paramount to adding a large amount of relatively untested code to a beta release, written under a tight time constraint, that would only ever be used in 2.1. Writing code for a single, already outdated release is foolhardy. This is not a good use of developer time -- which could be better spent on 2.2 -- ensuring that we never get into this situation again. You may say, blahblah, it's just 2.1_beta5 and does not offer as many great things as 2.2 (which no one can tell me is going to arrive in the next week or even month). But we need some backward compatibility layer anyway, so we could use this as a testbed... That is what game.c provides, albeit badly. So even if game.c sucks, why not use what we have for now? And do not forget to implement a better compatibility layer for 2.2+? The amount of work makes in prohibitive. Regards, Freddie. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Freddie Witherden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still think that SQLite is the way to go, so far as future proofing goes. Going straight to tagfile makes it a lot harder to go to SQLite later on (two converters needed etc.). The advantages of a database are also numerous, firstly data abstraction and secondly in viewing/ using the data outside of Warzone (e.g for debugging purposes, as any SQLite viewer could be used). Perfection or progress - pick one. I don't even see anyone working on the stats sqlite stuff for a long while. We can use the stats sqlite code to save stuff that would be duplicated, such as droid templates. But I do not want the savegame cruft to hold us back much longer, so unless someone has a plan to get the code to ported to sqlite, I will complete what I know how to do once I get the time. - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On 9/22/08, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Montag, 22. September 2008 04:32:13 schrieb bugs buggy: While this has been discussed before, I feel that we need more input from everyone, so I created a poll to see what the community thinks is the best course of action. This concerns if we should do a 2.1 beta 5, or skip 2.1 beta 5, and do a 2.2 beta 1. In either case, there must be another beta. I vote for 2.1_beta5 for the reasons stated earlier. We cannot release 2.2 just now. You are giving a wrong impression to the community... I *will* be full of bugs, several things may need to be removed if you want to start releasing it within the next one or two months, several things will not be finished till then, etc... So you need at least till December for a release, imo. Obviously not telling the community these things (in the question already, people are likely to click before they have read everything), and making them think 2.1 is crap, but we could get 2.2 just now resulted in those wrong votes. I didn't say 2.1 is crap, I said it breaks savegames, and is lacking other features. I see there was a slight miswording though--I will redo it, and start poll over. However, I didn't state a 'release', I said 2.1 beta 5 or 2.2 beta 1. Either way, we are going to have another beta, it just depends on which version we do the beta from. I have been playing 2.2 (trunk+ FMVpatch) SP game, and as I encounter bugs/issues, that is what I work on. For 2.1 (branch), IMO, it is *not* worth even playing the SP game. You can't even compare them, the difference the FMVs bring is simply huge. That is mainly why I do not think 2.1 is worth it to continue to work on/be released On the MP front, since 2.2 2.1 are pretty much the same codewise, there is no real difference here. http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=6t=2188 The reasons have (more or less) already been discussed on this list already. But let me add that savegames are a very good debugging tool, and *if* we release a 2.1 beta 5 that will break savegames since beta 4, and trunk as well, there will be no easy way to load those games up, and see if the same issue is present in trunk or not. 2.1_beta5 would add the gateway section back to savegames, right? And that would make them unable to load in trunk? And this is that miswording. And in my latest rounds of debugging things, this would not be something I would like that much, in fact, I would hate it. With such a small, active, development crew working on this project, I rather we all concentrate our efforts on trunk, and rebase from that. You mean rebranch? Yes. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On 9/22/08, Freddie Witherden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Dennis, On 22 Sep 2008, at 16:24, Dennis Schridde wrote: Am Montag, 22. September 2008 15:29:09 schrieb Freddie Witherden: Speaking of conversion: The only thing that makes =2.1_beta4 games not load in 2.1_beta4 is that the static gateway and zone information is missing? Can't we just copy that from the original map again? (In a conversion step, maybe as an external tool if necessary.) It would be a lot of effort that would only be useful/used in beta5. Furthermore it would need a lot of bug-checking, perhaps more so than getting trunk 100% stable. Better than leaving a out a release and letting the ship sink in the dream that the next release would come anywhere soon. To support save games with and without zones would be a massive undertaking. It would be paramount to adding a large amount of relatively untested code to a beta release, written under a tight time constraint, that would only ever be used in 2.1. Writing code for a single, already outdated release is foolhardy. This is not a good use of developer time -- which could be better spent on 2.2 -- ensuring that we never get into this situation again. This about sums it up. Developer time is short, so we need to do what will be best for developers. The whole predicament of not having a release for such a long period of time *IS* the problem. The two different versions, trunk branch, are getting *very* different. The longer we wait, the differences keep growing, and the harder it is getting to backport the needed patches. If everyone wants a 2.1 release, fine, do it now. Then 2.2 will make a appearance (aka beta 1) soon after the release of 2.1 anyway. They we can do releases much quicker from then on, and never have this problem come up again. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Am Montag, 22. September 2008 18:40:02 schrieb Per Inge Mathisen: On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Freddie Witherden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still think that SQLite is the way to go, so far as future proofing goes. Going straight to tagfile makes it a lot harder to go to SQLite later on (two converters needed etc.). The advantages of a database are also numerous, firstly data abstraction and secondly in viewing/ using the data outside of Warzone (e.g for debugging purposes, as any SQLite viewer could be used). Perfection or progress - pick one. The second. If it includes the first, ok, but it does not have to necessarily. --Devu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
Am Montag, 22. September 2008 18:41:04 schrieb bugs buggy: On 9/22/08, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Montag, 22. September 2008 04:32:13 schrieb bugs buggy: We cannot release 2.2 just now. You are giving a wrong impression to the community... I *will* be full of bugs, several things may need to be removed if you want to start releasing it within the next one or two months, several things will not be finished till then, etc... So you need at least till December for a release, imo. Obviously not telling the community these things (in the question already, people are likely to click before they have read everything), and making them think 2.1 is crap, but we could get 2.2 just now resulted in those wrong votes. I didn't say 2.1 is crap, I said it breaks savegames, and is lacking other features. I see there was a slight miswording though--I will redo it, and start poll over. Don't forget to state that 2.2 aka trunk will not be affected by the savegame change of 2.1_beta5... ;) However, I didn't state a 'release', I said 2.1 beta 5 or 2.2 beta 1. Either way, we are going to have another beta, it just depends on which version we do the beta from. You indeed said Release 2.2 in the poll item... --Devu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
On 9/22/08, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Montag, 22. September 2008 18:41:04 schrieb bugs buggy: On 9/22/08, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Montag, 22. September 2008 04:32:13 schrieb bugs buggy: We cannot release 2.2 just now. You are giving a wrong impression to the community... I *will* be full of bugs, several things may need to be removed if you want to start releasing it within the next one or two months, several things will not be finished till then, etc... So you need at least till December for a release, imo. Obviously not telling the community these things (in the question already, people are likely to click before they have read everything), and making them think 2.1 is crap, but we could get 2.2 just now resulted in those wrong votes. I didn't say 2.1 is crap, I said it breaks savegames, and is lacking other features. I see there was a slight miswording though--I will redo it, and start poll over. Don't forget to state that 2.2 aka trunk will not be affected by the savegame change of 2.1_beta5... ;) Ok, everything should be correctly worded now, and the poll has been reset. http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=6t=2188 ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
[Warzone-dev] Vote for what you think is best.
While this has been discussed before, I feel that we need more input from everyone, so I created a poll to see what the community thinks is the best course of action. This concerns if we should do a 2.1 beta 5, or skip 2.1 beta 5, and do a 2.2 beta 1. In either case, there must be another beta. http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=6t=2188 The reasons have (more or less) already been discussed on this list already. But let me add that savegames are a very good debugging tool, and *if* we release a 2.1 beta 5 that will break savegames since beta 4, and trunk as well, there will be no easy way to load those games up, and see if the same issue is present in trunk or not. And in my latest rounds of debugging things, this would not be something I would like that much, in fact, I would hate it. With such a small, active, development crew working on this project, I rather we all concentrate our efforts on trunk, and rebase from that. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
