| |
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....
|
| |
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. |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3193 |
ZeSmasher: I am not a dumpster for used/old wives, I only accept unused or mint conditions, and possibly, young girls. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 156 |
Still haven't seen any argument why grouping minor revision of the same release being a bad thing.
I for one appreciate if bugs are found and could be corrected. And I sympathise with the idea of being shamed for fucking up.
All I say is that I feel the users are penalised with a cluttered user interface that could be solved by grouping the minor iterations as one. Would be kewl if someone addressed the issue if why that wouldn't be beneficial for all. |
| |
Didi
Registered: Nov 2011
Posts: 487 |
I second the request to show the mark "broken" in list view in some way (different icon? little bug?). Makes it easier on search to skip broken versions.
The CSDb "keep it all, even it is broken or shit" policy has been discussed quite often. The best way to cope with it is to test your releases carefully before publishing them. Especially with old games there is no need to rush. Take your time for intense testing and maybe even let someone neutral check it because often you do not recognize your own mistakes. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Next |
