| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
Recall releases
# Background
I messed up. We released a version of Tink's Subtraction that was bugged. The trainer poked maximum values in the registries on every load. But the max value was different depending on the level chosen to play at. I did a quick fix and released the new one where this aspect was perfected.
Then it showed that it also loaded one of the levels differently if you selected another difficulty level, so I needed to make a new fix and then also another version.
# What conflicting interests to take into account?
I think it's fair view that if you release shit and are sloppy in your quality assurance, it's only right if there is a level of embarrassment involved. At least to some extent.
It's also a fair view that preservers want all versions. At least to some extent.
But it is also worth taking into account that we also don't want people to pick up the wrong version of a game and spread it.
# Suggestions:
> Having said the above, I don't see the value in bugged versions risking to be spread over the final ones.
I want to be able to recall a release. I know this collides with the "preserve all" and the that I'm not properly dragged through the mud for sloppy work, but the bugged one is out of circulation.
I can edit comments - why not as a bare minimum give me the right to adjust (including removal) a release for the same duration as editing comments?
> If this is not possible, then I would want the option to issue a "replacement". I need to upload a new version which has a clear indicator that there was a previous - bugged version - that got replaced. Mud dragging and no spreading of the bugged one. Only counter argument is the access for the handful of people who see the benefit in that, intermediate, version.
> At least delete the download link for broken and replaced releases, and give the three people globally interested in preserving such bugged and replaced releases the option to download them separately. |
|
... 53 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11123 |
i think you are still missing the point on what csdb is about, and what it wants to be and what not.
what csdb is about:
- csdb is an archive, csdb collects all releases, buggy or not, intended or not, liked or not.
what csdb is not about and does not want to be:
- a software development platform with version tracking (use github or sourceforge or whatever else you prefer)
- a release outlet (use your homepage, upload to some ftps, use the boards, use forums)
- a BBS (use telnet for this)
- a fronted for gamers to find the best release of a game (there is gamebase for this)
- part of the warezdrama scene (use the BBSs for that)
what you are proposing just doesn't solve an actual problem. it would be very much needed IF releasing different versions of the same release would be a common thing in c64 world. but (thank god for this) it is not. quite the contrary - its pretty rare and doesnt happen often at all. so sure, once all the other much more important things on the 100 miles long TODO list have been added, someone may have a look at it and give it a go. at the current speed of development your grandchildren may enjoy flawless versioning on csdb.
that said, i actually really think that those who fuck up their so called first-releases should get punished and exposed. and that csdb shouldnt actually encourage this nonsense by adding features that makes it easier or less annoying to handle. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
Thanks - fair answer. Not witty reply but something you really put your head into. Much appreciated!
I'm more than happy to have a conclusion that in order to best support the *visibility* it might make sense to do it like as per my mock-up. But that it was silly low in priority.
Then I have achieved something with the discussion. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
And adding to that;
- It's indeed *not* Github. If it was then we'd add all builds of a program - possibly some archiever would want that in order to capture EVERY revision of work in progress :-P
- It's indeed a release outlet for a number of people. Scene releasing is separate, but it happens on CSDB as well. Why shouldn't it? There is no point in adding stuff to CSDB much later than putting it out somewhere else, is there?
- A BBS is a function for files and discussions - CSDB has both. The Forum is for sure a discussion boards as good as any BBS.
- A front-end to pick up games? Well people are using it for that. I would argue that that is what a lot of people primarily use it for. So here the internal perception might be in total disharmony with the external...
- And I agree that the warez scene is separate. It's an agreed mechanism for what releases to count and how to count. Having said this, I can't see why they couldn't count stuff that was put online on CSDB if they chose to, and CSBD can't do anything about that someone else is making a point system based on what appears on CSDB. But that's a discussion for those making the point systems.
And;
I assume the "real problem" by your definition is the releases of bugged versions. I agree that is a problem.
But that should be a scene problem. And did someone just say that CSDB is not the scene - is merely an archiving site. It's not the place to cast bad karma and involve in scen politics. And yet that seems to be a few people main objective. I think a few people need to think that over another round ... I have my mind clear on the matter! |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11123 |
csdb _was_ counted as a release "board" until some years ago. and the result was that csdb admins had to take part in silly nonsense related to it all the time, which became really time consuming and boring to handle. (around that time CBA removed the entire "warez" section from TDD because of similar reasons).
thank god some time later the warez ppl decided to move to BBSs.
and obviously csdb can do everything about who uploads what and what stuff can be here and what can not. there were times when cracks were not allowed at all, for example :) |
| |
Seven
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 201 |
Your mockup is oversimplifying things. It would be insufficient to simply "deprecate" binaries as the different versions will most likely have different meta data attached to it. Different date, potentially different credits, _especially_ if, as you suggest, it would motivate people to "update" their cracks.
I do think that you're actually struggling with the definition of the word "release" though. If it's out, it's a release. If you put another version out, it's another release. |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 1989 |
Quoting Bacchus
- A front-end to pick up games? Well people are using it for that. I would argue that that is what a lot of people primarily use it for. So here the internal perception might be in total disharmony with the external...
Mad people. When I need a game, I often out of bad habit go to CSDb and search for the game, just to find 2000 various cracks of the game which is REALLY annoying. Then I go to gb64 instead, like it's supposed to be. :)
That being said, chaining releases to each other in a more structured form than exploiting the comments section would be good for many reasons like: deprecation as Pontus mentions, other versions, party-version of a demo vs the 100% 101% and 110% versions, etc. Updated tools with new features and so on. There are many reasons why you'd like to chain / connected releases to each other. I think as for preservation this "meta data" would give you context, which you otherwise kind of lose. And for the rest of us it would just be a nice thing to have. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4598 |
Quote: Your mockup is oversimplifying things. It would be insufficient to simply "deprecate" binaries as the different versions will most likely have different meta data attached to it. Different date, potentially different credits, _especially_ if, as you suggest, it would motivate people to "update" their cracks.
I do think that you're actually struggling with the definition of the word "release" though. If it's out, it's a release. If you put another version out, it's another release.
This. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154 |
Quote: Quoting Bacchus
- A front-end to pick up games? Well people are using it for that. I would argue that that is what a lot of people primarily use it for. So here the internal perception might be in total disharmony with the external...
Mad people. When I need a game, I often out of bad habit go to CSDb and search for the game, just to find 2000 various cracks of the game which is REALLY annoying. Then I go to gb64 instead, like it's supposed to be. :)
That being said, chaining releases to each other in a more structured form than exploiting the comments section would be good for many reasons like: deprecation as Pontus mentions, other versions, party-version of a demo vs the 100% 101% and 110% versions, etc. Updated tools with new features and so on. There are many reasons why you'd like to chain / connected releases to each other. I think as for preservation this "meta data" would give you context, which you otherwise kind of lose. And for the rest of us it would just be a nice thing to have.
This. |
| |
Seven
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 201 |
That's really moving the discussion forward, reposting voices that support your side and not addressing any of the issues pointed out in your own suggestion and flawed grasp of vocabulary.
Carry On Cracker. |
| |
Pitcher
Registered: Aug 2006
Posts: 61 |
OK, I tried to keep out of this, I do agree partly on both sides, but there are a few flaws :
Part of what I did read by different people brought up the same subject :
Csdb wasn't a release site, which obviously by the first release rules if a bbs is down they are, If they like it or not.
Or that Csdb had stopped being part of the scene because of all the politics or the time tied up with with first release issues, but scene rules are still classing Csdb as part of the scene to be able to use the time/date stamps of releases as/if/when a bbs is down. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Next |
