| |
DeeKay
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 363 |
Pointless rule-enforcement on CSdb
Okay, you all know how I like CSDb-drama, but usually I don't create any myself, but in this case Groepaz anal-ness about CSDb-rules simply forces me to:
Here's the story: We released the PAL/NTSC version of the NUFLI editor. It pretty much only included the new universal displayer, so we kept everything else the same. However, as I noticed on X while working on Electric's Tiger, it got somehow corrupted, meaning that it would CRASH and DESTROY your picture when you drew with sprites under certain circumstances. I notified Crossbow and he confirmed it and started working on a fixed version, which i tested extensively to make sure it's all A-ok (that's v1.12)
Okay, so I approached Groepaz and asked how to best solve the problem that there's a BROKEN version of our NUFLI editor on CSDb that actually DESTROYS images! I was really willing to play by the rules (=not deleting it and not stealthily replacing it with a fixed version), but whatever I suggested and did (renaming it to "Buggy-ed" so people wouldn't find it, using the "this file is corrupted" feature in the file dialogue), he said it's all not allowed and reversed anything I would try. Now I'm locked out of our own tool and can't edit it, great. Talking about admin power abuse... I dunno what his problem is seriously, sometimes he just loves to piss people off for no reason whatsoever...
Okay, so now there's still the broken v1.11 online which people can happily download. But why the FUCK would anyone want a broken version of a tool that DESTROYS your picture? This is not some 90% party version of a Demo, so what's the fucking point? Okay, so we released it corrupted, our bad. But should we be punished indefinately for it when we FIXED it meanwhile? And why can't I simply use the "this file is corrupted" feature? What's the point being anal about THAT, too? I mean - you CAN still download it and masturbate over a disfunctional c64 tool if that's your sexual preference, but at least you'll know it's br0ken! The *only* hint that it's broken is in the comments, which thank god GroeFaZ didn't delete...
Good v1.12: NUFLI Editor V1.12
Bad v1.11: NUFLI Editor V1.11 [broken] |
|
... 86 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Mr. SID
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 424 |
I'm going to download v1.11, it has a higher rating (straight 10) while 1.12 only has 9.8... |
| |
DeeKay
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 363 |
Hahahaha! 8) GREAT point, Mr.Sid! ;-D |
| |
cavey
Registered: Jul 2002
Posts: 68 |
What if somebody actually wants to make USE of the corrupting bugs in the program? You would withhold that possibility to those people ;)
Besides, without bugs, there wouldn't be bugfixes and newer versions of programs.
How about repackaging the buggy version with a readme.txt that says the program has a serious bug, with the circumstances under which the bug occurs, and a suggestion to download the newest version in case you do not want that bug to happen?
|
| |
daison
Registered: May 2005
Posts: 90 |
I guess the entire issue is about active sceners vs archivers. Virtually all the CSDB drama is based upon this.
Not much to do about it since 'rules are rules'...
|
| |
DeeKay
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 363 |
If i repackage it, i have to re-add the file. And that is against the rules.
Also, this is not a bug but rather a corruption of totally unchanged memory areas that worked just fine before, so that's a bit of a difference... And with tools like Firefox etc there's a lot more changes with every release than merely one feature, so you NEED to keep the old version online - also for certification reasons, there's a whole ecosystem with bebbrowsers that is simply not the case for NUFLI...
But I'm sure if they just happened to release a Firefox version that simply DID NOT WORK, they'd replace it immediately with one that would... |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
Quote:Why????
because csdb is a software archive, and so all versions will get archived. its as simply as that.
Quote:I've done it without consequences in the past (before I knew about the rules) and I know of many other people that did. Remember Graham's advice to do just that on IRC? 8) Also, you cannot do *anything* when the links are external, people can simply replace the file on their server and that is that - So what's the freaking point???
and because there are still ways to bend the rules and get away with it, we should completely remove them! ofcourse.
no, infact what you say are the reasons why we add local copies of every file if we stumble about external-link only entries. and its the reason why links to binaries are beeing logged and binaries are never deleted for real. you can obviously always be sneaky - but dont complain if someone notices.
Quote:DON'T ASK HOW TO PLAY NICE!
see above. i recommend asking graham what happened last time though =P
Quote:I guess the entire issue is about active sceners vs archivers. Virtuall all the CSDB drama is based upon this.
word. its the one single thing where opinions clash indeed. |
| |
Mace
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 1799 |
There's a feature called 'goof' in CSDb, where you can comment on buggy software.
I helped you... |
| |
DeeKay
Registered: Nov 2002
Posts: 363 |
Okay, we did find a solution on IRC: I'll repackage the .prg of the b0rked version with a DON'T-USE-THIS.txt in the folder /dont/use/this/its/buggy/and/will/destroy/your/picture/if/you/use/the/sprite/mod e/ and re-add that... |
| |
Steppe
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 1510 |
Really, if you can't bend the holy CSDb rules even in cases like that, accept my deepest condolences. This is silly, and if you lost touch to reality that much to not know when to turn a blind eye to something you really should go out and take a walk for a change. |
| |
Celtic
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 807 |
Due to some personal issues perff wont be back for a while, but when he does i will ask him about versioning :) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 - Next |
