| |
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. |
|
... 60 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 2014 |
Quote: It's not for the 1st release scene, and it's not just for archivers. Click "Help" and you can start reading there: http://csdb.dk/help.php?section=intro
"...and as much information about these [released etc.] as possible."
I.e. how releases relate to each other in terms of linking releases is a very valid meta data to have. Not just to cover fuck-ups but also f.e.
"Booze Design, 1991" ----> "Some old demo I forgot the name about." Reason: Refers to this demo as breaking the previous dot-ball record by 56 extra dots.
"That demo over there" ----> "The other demo here" Reason: Part 2 ripped but font changed.
or finally.
"Bacchus release #2" ----> "Bacchus release #1". Reason: He screwed up badly and Groepaz is furious, the old release is borked. This new one is the one to use.
And so on...
Not that I really care, for me CSDb is something else. Just trying to give Bacchus some extra quite valid arguments. But then, if it's low prio it's low prio. At least he has a point. It would be fair if at least that was acknowledged. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4731 |
Of course you could do different links between releases. The connections are as many as there are releases though, why often a link in the comments field is enough. You can find that everywhere on various releases. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4731 |
Everything seems to have been said here now. Things are only repeating. Mods have all the info - don't call us, we will call you. Time to focus on new releases, everyone. Be creative. Closing thread. |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 - Next |
