| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 156 |
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....
|
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4731 |
Pitcher: All releases end up here as well, so no problems there. The boards are there to show who were first. If people want to download here, let them do that. If they want to enjoy the boards, let them. We are all playing with old computers here, why rule out the BBS world, when you guys are cracking games from 1985 for the C64? Enjoy the little magic that is still with the C64 scene, and that includes the boards.
If people hog lines they will be kicked out from the boards. Simple. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 156 |
Several things at the same time, but it's me bringing them up so noone else to blame.
- The main topic is still the presentation layer; aggregating multiple versions of the same release with minor differences is IMSO enhancing the usability of the site. There is no usability advantage of splitting them. And this can be accommodated without deleting entries that the archivers want and proper bad karma for sloppy QA still lands on the cracker and group.
I haven't heard any relevant argument against that. The closest was seven saying he agreed it was stupid but it is like it is.
- The other topic, how to count and the rules around that is a separate discussion, where I totally agree with Pitcher of course, but still refrain from adding any comments. When ready to dive into that fully, then let's start a separate thread. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4731 |
<Post edited by hedning on 12/12-2017 00:32>
The relevant argument is of course that every release you do ends up here sooner or later as this is a database that aim to be as complete as possible. If you dont want your crack archived, don't upload it anywhere, or spread it. Pretty simple. If you do various versions, all versions ends up here too, so make sure you only upload stuff you know is 100% if you only want one version archived. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 156 |
Quote: Bacchus:
1. Moderators run CSDb and rules can change, that is correct. We have heard your arguments. Thank you. You have the right to your opinions.
2. CSDb was a first release site for quite a long time, and had another approach. This inflicted, however, with the original idea with this site: being THE source of information regarding the C64 Scene. We had to take part in scene politics, and had rules on what first releases should be here or not etc etc. Quality ranks and so on. This made CSDb incomplete, so the rules changed. Fighting and drama between groups took a lot of work and energy and together with CBA's The Digital Dungeon FTP (which was a first release site too) CSDb stopped being part of scene drama and first release fights, and the first release scene moved to the BBS world completely, which made things a lot more easier for everyone. Boards was always part of the first release world though, Antidote has been one of the counted boards for very long, and the 100% move to three boards was also due to more boards emerging on the scene. There has been no complains over this move until you became active again. You do not like calling boards in 2017, and you do not like how the CSDb rules are written. And that is completely ok opinions, but regarding the boards, you have to talk to the guys running the first release lists (and all major groups have agreed on what boards to be first on).
Can I just add one thing;
I love CSDB. If I didn't I would care. I care, I hence like to see it improve. I'm pressed by how it's run. I subscribe to almost all of the principles it's based on. But nothing is perfect. And as I care I see that my suggestion would improve usability. I care, and see a gap where I don't agree with the principles.
All I say is that IMO, version with minor patches are iterations of the SAME release - not separate releases. Be it adding a missed greeting or typo in the intro scroller or a gfx bug in the game - still iterations of the same.
You insist on separating them which in my opinion makes sense for noone. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4731 |
I hear you. And I am just trying to explain how things work. My own views are for the moderators eyes only if and when we discuss this. :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
somehow it shows that bacchus is a noob regarding csdb :=) |
| |
Smasher
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 520 |
"lateral thinking" is solving problems through an indirect and creative approach. for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateral_thinking
so in this case: send your girlfriends/wives to Ian Coog, Ian will (hopefully) lose interest in debugging kindergarten games on c64, nobody else will ever find any bugs, no need to upload new versions, no need for this discussion, problem solved. :) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
leave ian alone! |
| |
Tim
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2002
Posts: 467 |
Well.. if nothing else this thread made me realize there actually IS a field that can be used to mark a release as broken by the maintainer. . Would genuinely have loved to know this recently.. and, although off and on over periods of time, I am by far new to csdb so thanks!
Nitpicking though, Id like to add that this field is almost as well hidden as the Youtube link field, which I only found purely accidental recently after seeing Hedning comment to a user placing a Youtube link in the comments (and even then it still took me a while to find the actual field).
IMHO Bacchus has a valid point that, from a layout perspective, there is room for improvement, or at least I find his comments valid as long as visuals such as marguee-scroll are displayed in a very prominent place near a download, rather than useful information regarding the actual file(s). |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4731 |
Tim: These fields are pretty new, so no worries. And if you are active on CSDb, using it for research, uploading lost releases etc, helping the database (as all users should, and is the main purpose of getting an account here), you should see these fields often as they are there when you add a release. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Next |
