| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
Updating releases after initial upload
OK, maybe a one pixel change doesn't grants a new entry, but lately I've seen people updating their releases after fixing bugs and stuff, then deleting the old download link and adding a new one. So, up to that point, 2-3 different versions of the same release exists somewhere.
If f.e. a data file is revised to an executable, an update is logical and even a must, but in these particular cases the authors are changing the actual visual characteristics of their work:
CSDb Logo
Weightless Fish Floating over a Worm Infested Desert
Following the same logic, I could go back to my old stuff, change a pixel here and there, refurbish them to modern standards, silently update them, and no one would notice except for those who're really familiar with my works.
PBY & FatFrost, it's really nothing personal, I'm just wondering where's the line where we'd have to open a new entry for an updated release? |
|
| |
Oswald
Registered: Apr 2002
Posts: 5086 |
according to csdb standards this is strictly forbidden. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11359 |
its ok when the change is trivial (like a stray pixel, or a typo in a scroller) and the change is made within 48h. |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
Quote: according to csdb standards this is strictly forbidden.
I've read the help/docs and can't say that I found anything related to this matter (except for the part dealing with re-releases of cracks).
Or is there some kind of an unwritten rule considering the issue? |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
Quote: its ok when the change is trivial (like a stray pixel, or a typo in a scroller) and the change is made within 48h.
I see, guess that's fair enough. |
| |
pby
Registered: Jan 2014
Posts: 3 |
Sorry, if I did something against the rules.
I only changed the preview picture and left both versions as prg files online here (I named the new version "updated" so everyone coud see which one was the original version - both versions are filed under the same release). I also announced the changes I made in the comments. I did not silently change anything. I just thought the suggestion of doing the image in full resolution (made in one of the comments) made sense so I wanted to add the pixels I lost using the wrong format. I might be wrong but in my eyes it wasn't a fundamental change of my work.
If it's against the rules I'll gladly delete the release so no version of it will bother anyone.
I'm a huge fan of this community and I appreciate the feedback here. To me it's a great help to get back at doing c64 gfx and to even evolve technically and get better with time. I had no intention to fake anything. I know my work has obvious flaws but with your help I'm ready to improve... |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
Quote: Sorry, if I did something against the rules.
I only changed the preview picture and left both versions as prg files online here (I named the new version "updated" so everyone coud see which one was the original version - both versions are filed under the same release). I also announced the changes I made in the comments. I did not silently change anything. I just thought the suggestion of doing the image in full resolution (made in one of the comments) made sense so I wanted to add the pixels I lost using the wrong format. I might be wrong but in my eyes it wasn't a fundamental change of my work.
If it's against the rules I'll gladly delete the release so no version of it will bother anyone.
I'm a huge fan of this community and I appreciate the feedback here. To me it's a great help to get back at doing c64 gfx and to even evolve technically and get better with time. I had no intention to fake anything. I know my work has obvious flaws but with your help I'm ready to improve...
PBY, as I said, don't take it personally. I've never said you or anyone else changed anything silently (I have seen that both you and FatFrost have noted the changes on the product page), just brought up the quiet update as a possibility that no one could track at the moment.
But basically, I was just interested what is the general approach about this matter.
I'm more than fine with Groepaz's view on it. |
| |
pby
Registered: Jan 2014
Posts: 3 |
no, I don't take it personally but since you brought it up I wanted to set clear that I'm not into silently updating anything (since not everyone reading this thread will go to the mentioned releases, how should they know?).
I agree that it sucks if people secretly changed their releases afterwards.
The other problem I see are the votes since no one could see what version the votes actually counted for.
I'll delete the updated version. There'll probably be a chance to rerelease it in a different form like a collection or a demo of some sort, so my work wasn't in vein ;-). |
| |
jailbird
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1578 |
There are no rules clearly stating that updating a release is not allowed, so you don't have to delete anything. And just as Groepaz wrote, a trivial change (like a pixel on the wrong place) within 48h is just fine. |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3187 |
just create a v2 or updated version entry if it's done different days after the initial release. |
| |
pby
Registered: Jan 2014
Posts: 3 |
Since I added 4800 pixels (24x200) by changing the format that might be considered more than a trivial change... or bending Groepaz's guideline far too much. So I think it's better to keep the picture as it originally was...
I corrected a couple of bad (green and red) pixels a few hours after the initial upload too but I left that fixed version online of course (as the guideline clearly applies to fixes like that). Thanks for the clarification on that matter! |
... 15 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 - Next |
