Re: [warzone2100-dev] Warzone's direction for 2.2.4
Guangcong Luo wrote: I don't think any other software company has done that, ever, which should be the first clue that perhaps it's a bad idea. We are not a software company. And we do not produce commercial games, so please don't compare us with them all the time. Is there anything wrong with continuing to support 2.2.4 nominally, like we do now? It's a lie. We haven't supported 2.2.4 for at least three months now (r8763 was the last commit to the 2.2-branch, r8283 was the last commit to 2.2.4-tag). And there is a difference between latest stable and supported version. We label something stable if it's good enough (compared to what it was before we improved it). So, we won't say there is no stable version, only that the last stable version isn't supported anymore (and has not been supported for 5 months, the release of 2.2.4). It's really a rather minimal amount of extra work; I mean, when's the last time we've gotten a 2.2.4 bug report? Probably you are missing the point here (or I am xD): It's not about the additional work of maintaining the 2.2 series, it's about informing the users of the state the project is in. We don't lose anything saying that we do not have a _supported_ stable version currently, we've got a supported beta. And that's one of the advantages of being a FLOSS project: You don't need to think about all the stuff marketing people in companies have to do, we won't lose a single dollar/euro. Additionally I don't care that much about our reputation as long as it's defined as lie to people so they are happy instead of telling them the truth. - Kreuvf signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Warzone's direction for 2.2.4
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Kreuvf kre...@warzone2100.de wrote: We are not a software company. And we do not produce commercial games, so please don't compare us with them all the time. Okay, software company was the wrong word. I meant out of any software project, commercial or free, proprietary or open. I don't think any of them have ever labeled a stable version unsupported before a newer stable has been released. Probably you are missing the point here (or I am xD): It's not about the additional work of maintaining the 2.2 series, it's about informing the users of the state the project is in. Well, I think the problem is that the term supported is not well defined. I couldn't find a definition on Stack Overflow, Wikipedia, or Wiktionary. To me, supported means This is the latest stable version, and we will try to help you if you have a problem with it. Sure, most of the time, that help is probably upgrade to 2.3 beta 12, but I think that qualifies. I mean, sometimes, problems with 2.3 beta 12 are solved by downgrade to 2.2.4. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I still think 2.2.4 is more stable (or at least differently stable) than whatever latest beta we have. I mean, 2.3 beta 12 still has that template issue. It's also that we break netcode/savegame compatibility every other day in the 2.3 betas, so someone who wants a stable game in that sense is better off playing 2.2.4 on the lobby servers, and we support that behavior on some level. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Warzone's direction for 2.2.4
Guangcong Luo wrote: Well, I think the problem is that the term supported is not well defined. I couldn't find a definition on Stack Overflow, Wikipedia, or Wiktionary. The one I had in mind is: We will try to fix bugs you report and come up with a new version after some time. Support in the sense of helping when there are problems with the latest stable is mainly done in the forums, I cannot say anything about it, but based on my experiences elsewhere I think that most support is user-to-user support, isn't it? And each dev could still help people that have problems with 2.2.4. - Kreuvf signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Warzone's direction for 2.2.4
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:26 PM, buginator buginato...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all, just wanted to update a few things about the project. First off, 2.2.4 should be dead. Really. It serves no useful purpose for us at all. I am a bit uncomfortable with that. I do not think we want linux distros etc to use a random 2.3 beta. If I had any idea that the 2.3 series would have dragged on this long, I'd have kept backporting fixes to 2.2 branch and pushed for a 2.2.5 already... Something went awfully wrong on the planning of 2.3 - it was only supposed to be 2.2.4 + the new trunk netcode :-( - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Warzone's direction for 2.2.4
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Kreuvf kre...@warzone2100.de wrote: Support in the sense of helping when there are problems with the latest stable is mainly done in the forums, I cannot say anything about it, but based on my experiences elsewhere I think that most support is user-to-user support, isn't it? And each dev could still help people that have problems with 2.2.4. Well, whatever definition of the term support we use, dropping support for the latest stable while the newer development version hasn't been made stable yet is unprecedented in any sort of software. So if we're doing so, I think that means we're doing it wrong. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Warzone's direction for 2.2.4
On Monday, 5 April 2010 at 2:44, Guangcong Luo wrote: Is there anything wrong with continuing to support 2.2.4 nominally, like we do now? It's really a rather minimal amount of extra work; I mean, when's the last time we've gotten a 2.2.4 bug report? Five days ago: http://developer.wz2100.net/ticket/1723 ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Warzone's direction for 2.2.4
On 4/5/10, Kreuvf wrote: Guangcong Luo wrote: I don't think any other software company has done that, ever, which should be the first clue that perhaps it's a bad idea. We are not a software company. And we do not produce commercial games, so please don't compare us with them all the time. Is there anything wrong with continuing to support 2.2.4 nominally, like we do now? It's a lie. We haven't supported 2.2.4 for at least three months now (r8763 was the last commit to the 2.2-branch, r8283 was the last commit to 2.2.4-tag). And there is a difference between latest stable and supported version. We label something stable if it's good enough (compared to what it was before we improved it). So, we won't say there is no stable version, only that the last stable version isn't supported anymore (and has not been supported for 5 months, the release of 2.2.4). This. It's really a rather minimal amount of extra work; I mean, when's the last time we've gotten a 2.2.4 bug report? Probably you are missing the point here (or I am xD): It's not about the additional work of maintaining the 2.2 series, it's about informing the users of the state the project is in. We don't lose anything saying that we do not have a _supported_ stable version currently, we've got a supported beta. And that's one of the advantages of being a FLOSS project: You don't need to think about all the stuff marketing people in companies have to do, we won't lose a single dollar/euro. Additionally I don't care that much about our reputation as long as it's defined as lie to people so they are happy instead of telling them the truth. and this. I just find it silly to have something that is deemed stable yet we don't support it all. People submit bug reports for it, and we say try 2.3 series, since we won't be able to fix that bug in 2.2.x anymore. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
[warzone2100-dev] Warzone's direction for 2.2.4
Hey all, just wanted to update a few things about the project. First off, 2.2.4 should be dead. Really. It serves no useful purpose for us at all. The codebase has changed too much, so any bug reports we get on this version is pretty much meaningless in the vast majority of the cases. We should update trac to have 2.2.4 listed as unsupported, since it is just that. We should update the front page to strongly encourage people to use the 2.3 series of releases, instead of a version we no longer support. If no objections, I will do that before I leave again. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
