The road to 0.2.8.2

[Z-Man]

That works, but I would suggest also including the UTC time in the filename (and maybe in a comment in releases.php)

No, the alpha version ID is already too long. The Windows installer breaks it into two lines sometimes when it shouldn't.

That would have been my first guess Valid. Is the approach of keeping the file names the same, but appending a -<BUILD> to the directory name, all right?

Err, no? It defeats the purpose of having directories to restrict them to a single release... How about having the time in the filename?[/quote]But it is a new release. It has new code. Well, technically, it isn't a release at all.

What if someone doesn't want new features, just the bug fixes?

Show me the person who minds features that don't get into his way.

- Added spectator autokicking

DOS bugfix

Oh? How does kicking innocent spectators fix anything? This would keep me from upgrading my server...

It's configurable, of course, and off by default. And don't think innocent spectators, think evil fake player attackers, bandwidth leeches and slot blockers.

- Added history to chat and console

Wrtl, as our newest member, didn't have any bugs to fix and wasn't even here before the feature freeze. And it's a nice, small, and often requested feature.

It's still a feature.

Yes, but one that, with more than enough certainty, doesn't rip open new bugs and improves things. Like Lucifer says: as far as publicly voiced opinions go, you're the only one here opposing those.

Thus far, our releases have been quad-digit. It's not like players won't be used to it.

The goal of the versioning changes was, partly, to make the versions more memorable to users. They don't get the current four digit system right.

[Lucifer]

Thus far, our releases have been quad-digit. It's not like players won't be used to it.

2.6? 2.7? 2.7.1? Those releases? Nobody's used to it, who are you kidding?

[Self_Destructo]

Thus far, our releases have been quad-digit. It's not like players won't be used to it.

2.6? 2.7? 2.7.1? Those releases? Nobody's used to it, who are you kidding?

LOL, I was going to say the same if no one else did.

[joda.bot]

I wouldn't even mind having 2.8.1 instead of 0.2.8.1... because if you pay close attention that's what most ppl call it.

And to me Armagetron is well past it's 1.0 state because it's a stable running game. But I can understand if you want version 1.0 to be something special, so I don't mind. Lucifers suggestion sounds resonable to me, except that philippe might be in trouble then with his Name to Version scheme .

[Luke-Jr]

Thus far, our releases have been quad-digit. It's not like players won't be used to it.

2.6? 2.7? 2.7.1? Those releases? Nobody's used to it, who are you kidding?

If you want to drop the "completeness-factor" digit, I'm fine with that. IIRC, it was brought up in the original version discussion.

[Z-Man]

And dismissed on account of being confusing to those who got the versions right.

[Luke-Jr]

That works, but I would suggest also including the UTC time in the filename (and maybe in a comment in releases.php)

No, the alpha version ID is already too long. The Windows installer breaks it into two lines sometimes when it shouldn't.

I didn't suggest changing the version, just the filename.

That would have been my first guess Valid. Is the approach of keeping the file names the same, but appending a -<BUILD> to the directory name, all right?

Err, no? It defeats the purpose of having directories to restrict them to a single release... How about having the time in the filename?

But it is a new release. It has new code. Well, technically, it isn't a release at all.[/quote]
It is the same category, which is the date.

Thus far, our releases have been quad-digit. It's not like players won't be used to it.

The goal of the versioning changes was, partly, to make the versions more memorable to users. They don't get the current four digit system right.

Probably because, as far as I can tell, there was no "system" before. It has little to do with the number of digits. The only case where it would is that where people are confusing a version with a decimal number.

And dismissed on account of being confusing to those who got the versions right.

Well, it could be fairly simple to explain: The old versions had the "completeness-factor" digit, which is dropped.

[Z-Man]

That works, but I would suggest also including the UTC time in the filename (and maybe in a comment in releases.php)

No, the alpha version ID is already too long. The Windows installer breaks it into two lines sometimes when it shouldn't.

I didn't suggest changing the version, just the filename.

Yes, but there usually is the convention that all strange digits in a filename are the version. You suggest breaking that?

It is the same category, which is the date.

And that means for me? You got me hopelessly confused.

Well, it [dropping the first 0.] could be fairly simple to explain: The old versions had the "completeness-factor" digit, which is dropped.

We don't have a problem with those users who actually read our explanations Once we get a chance to explain, we could explain switching to binary code. Sadly, most won't read what we write, because they can't find the relevant bits on account of too much noise. Like this thread, nobody is going to read the one thing that actually belongs here at the bottom of this post.

Conclusion: The next version will be 0.2.8.2. Our users expect 0.2.8.2 to be better than 0.2.8.1, that's all. They don't care whether we concentrate on bugfixes or put the one or the other nice little cherry, err, feature, on top. They expect us not to screw up and introduce new bugs, but as the next paragraph shows, concentrating on bugfixes is no protection against that.

Bug in the alpha build: you get more cycle teleports than usual. The code handling perfect 180s had this as a side effect. It's largely a server side bug and will be fixed in the next alpha build.

[philippeqc]

wow, it seems that I found the easter egg, but I was too dumb to realise it. Well thanks a lot, it was very fun, I just hope I wasnt alone to be able to appreciate it at the moment. But I'm sure cvs conflits will be resolved soon.

Look for the server "ggE retsaE".

My other post has found its answer.

-ph

[Luke-Jr]

No, the alpha version ID is already too long. The Windows installer breaks it into two lines sometimes when it shouldn't.

I didn't suggest changing the version, just the filename.

Yes, but there usually is the convention that all strange digits in a filename are the version. You suggest breaking that?

So long as we're on the no-rules-filenames policy, I don't see why not.

Well, it [dropping the first 0.] could be fairly simple to explain: The old versions had the "completeness-factor" digit, which is dropped.

We don't have a problem with those users who actually read our explanations Once we get a chance to explain, we could explain switching to binary code. Sadly, most won't read what we write, because they can't find the relevant bits on account of too much noise. Like this thread, nobody is going to read the one thing that actually belongs here at the bottom of this post.

But the explanation would only need to target those who do read them and thus got the versions right the first time. The people who don't read them won't notice a change

[Z-Man]

My guess for the sake of the argument would be that most of those who got the versions right don't read explanations, either

[joda.bot]

Heh to me - I sum it up as

z-man prefers 0.x.y version numbers (as a matter of taste) and I'm done with this ... next version is 0.2.8.2 because we like to have some more number till 0.2.9

[Lucifer]

Hmm, I don't know if you noticed the big er, discussion, we had about versions before. Basically, what was decided is that we'll go to a even/odd stable/development pattern after 0.2.8.

So, we'll do 0.3 as a development release (I expect sometime in the summer, if not sooner). However, we're nominally working towards 1.0 for various reasons I don't really want to sum up (search the forums for it ). We'll do a 0.4 or even 0.6 if we really need to, though. So, Bacchus is 1.0. I prefer to be optimistic about it, too. C-whatever will be 1.2. ANd it'll be Major.Minor.Revision, where Revision usually means bugfixing, but there's some lingering discussion about backporting. Sooner or later, the lingering discussion will actually be helpful, but it looks like later more than sooner on that, at least to me it does.

So that makes 0.2.8 the last stable release before 1.0. What we didn't settle was how we were going to partition up releases from the stable branch that is Artemis, which is 0.2.8. Seems to me like it should be partitioned as 0.2.8.x, and we'll just wrap from 0.2.8.9 to 0.2.9.0. Some folks around here hate that, but realisticaly it gives us 20 releases before we have to either break that pattern or retire the 0.2.8 series. I think Bacchus will be out the door before we do 20 releases on the 0.2.8 line.

But the backporting discussion lingers, and, to use z-man's metaphor, enough cherries on top give a strong argument to bumping up to 0.2.9. If previous version numbers mean anything at this point, when you look over 0.2.6, 0.2.7, and 0.2.7.1. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't really know. I do know that if I take all the cherries off my cake and give them to my daughter, it's still the same cake underneath and I wouldn't try to kid myself. Unless it were strawberry shortcake, in which case there are no cherries and I'd give my daughter all the strawberries. She loves those.

[Z-Man]

It's just that the current plan (0.2.8.X for Artemis, 0.3.X for the next development release, 0.4.X for Bachus (or 1.0.X, depends), X marking mostly bugfix increments) already was the result of a long and very tiresome discussion If you, that mostly means the new members since then, want to reopen it, fine, but keep me out of it. I'll gladly accept any consensus. I'd suggest you read the old discussion completely before making new suggestions, though, (heh, that should make the barrier high enough) and be finished before it becomes relevant. That is, if you're unhappy that 0.3.X will be an experimental series, you need to hurry.

[joda.bot]

no, I'm fine with it ... just forgot about having read most of it ... some time