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 to2.1_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 provide2.1?
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 serioustrouble 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
