[CSDb] - User Forums - Recall releases

You are not logged in - nap

CSDb User Forums

Forums > CSDb Feedback > Recall releases

2017-12-11 17:01

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....

2017-12-12 18:43

chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11107

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 :)

2017-12-12 20:13

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.

2017-12-12 21:08

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.

2017-12-12 22:39

hedning

Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4594

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.

2017-12-13 18:56

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.

2017-12-13 19:48

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.

2017-12-13 21:51

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.

2017-12-13 22:06

hedning

Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4594

Quote: 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.

It's one thing to actively being part of it, and another to use it from outside as a backup plan as all releases should end up here as well.

CSDb do not want to be part of the first release dramas, and the first release groups seems very helpful to keep true and with that support the BBS scene as much as possible. They are doing a good job, and more and more boards are popping up, and with modern wifi modems for the c64 the popularity seems really good these days. It's just as odd making demos and cracking games on the c64 in the year 2017 as it is to call boards running on real hw. For me, the scene would lose some of the charm if we did not use all possible ways to explore and enjoy the C64, which is why we are here.

I know Bacchus has been complaining about having to call boards for at least the latest year or so on Facebook, he has been very clear about that on various occations, and it seems Fairlight is the only active cracking group complaining about it, and very strongly tries to change how the first release scene should work out. The rest of the first release groups clearly support, like and run boards themselves, and accepts the rules that is. Jazzcat always ask around when changes are being made, so you should discuss with him, and then he can orchestrate a discussion about what rules that you guys want to change in The List in Vandalism News, which is his diskmag. If he think they are sound that is. It is really up to him.

Or you can start a list in a diskmag of your own with your own rules, and try to convince all other groups to join in on that one instead of the rules we have been working with for years and years. Good luck!

2017-12-13 23:30

Bacchus

Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 154

The thread runs our in all sorts of directions, and I try to stay with the original line of thought;

- I still insist that from a usability perspective, grouping releases fulfils all relevant parties interest in this.

The only counterarguments I heard are
1) The wish list for development is LONG (fair argument - it says I have a point but one that is quite unimportant in priority)
2) Groepaz said "those who fuck up their so called first-releases should get punished and exposed" This second one I find VERY hard to combine with the notion that CSDB should not involve in "scene drama". Or "csdb admins had to take part in silly nonsense related to it all the time".

So who is it really for? If it was really "first release scene agnostic", then the idea of "punishing and exposing" people people for what they do on that scene seems a bit odd, doesn't it?

And Seven, if the other meta data for release is changing, then that is a strong indicator that a release is a new one. But if the same people involved change ten lines of assembly and build the project again, I still fail to see how that justifies a new entry with repeated metadata, clogging up searches and all of that.

But it's like social media arguments - people digging trenches, where listening to valid arguments it out of trends. People use the pause in their own talk, not to listen to others but to breath in so they can say more things. It's not a dialouge without the listening part, and it's not decent to others if you don't try to take in what others say. I REALLY try to find arguments in what I see here. It's just that I don't really find any ...

This must start with "Who is CSDB for and what are their needs?"

= It's not for the 1st release scene? Fine, then all the arguments that has this perspective as their starting-point are void in the discussion I guess. (Including #2 above)
= If it's only for the archievers, then the more versions the merrier isn't it?

So who is it for and what are their needs? How does CSDB best serve them?

2017-12-14 01:06

chatGPZ

Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11107

if only you had put as much time into testing and fixing the damned crack as you put into writing posts in this thread...... :=)

Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Next

Refresh

Subscribe to this thread: