| |
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 |
I very well did, and then some ... This 1984 game was one of the more difficult I have done given it's quite clever loading system, as is well described in the docs supplied.
But this discussion is not about that crack - it's about what CSDB is, who it serves and how to best fulfil that task. And it's saddening to see that the arguments for stiff positions are so lame, poorly founded, inconsistent and contradictory. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
this thread is all about this crack. it wouldnt exist if you didnt fuck it up. get over it. move on. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 156 |
Such releif - so you can focus your replies towards that and not the posts in the thread :( |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11384 |
whats the point, everything has been said already. you are just writing more and more, ignoring what has been said. |
| |
lemming
Registered: Oct 2009
Posts: 44 |
Hi. Nice discussion. Just wanted to personally affirm, what most people have kept repeating here, is that an updated release is an updated release, whether it's from 2017 or 1987.
This does not go just for cracks, you can find demos and intros and gfx and music from the past 35 years just the same.
Whether it's a legendary demo from 1987 or a poor crack from 2017, the difference could be anything from an minor variation in some routine to a simple testament of one's failure to test sufficiently. Most times it'll make a cool or interesting story after some time has passed.
Test the shit out of your releases. Get a tester if you don't have the patience to do it yourself. Sleep a night or two after you've finished something which was more or less of an effort. Give it a go again after you've rested enough in order to not be blind to your own mistakes.
If you were working on a deadline, everyone will understand why a fixed version is out there. If you were simply being hasty, just put out a fix, let folks know what was wrong with it originally, deal with it and move on. |
| |
Bacchus
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 156 |
Cutting out the core:
This must start with "Who is CSDB for and what are their needs?"
= It's not for the 1st release scene? Fine, then all the arguments that has this perspective as their starting-point are void in the discussion I guess. (Including #2 above)
= If it's only for the archievers, then the more versions the merrier isn't it?
So who is it for and what are their needs? How does CSDB best serve them? |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4731 |
Quote: Cutting out the core:
This must start with "Who is CSDB for and what are their needs?"
= It's not for the 1st release scene? Fine, then all the arguments that has this perspective as their starting-point are void in the discussion I guess. (Including #2 above)
= If it's only for the archievers, then the more versions the merrier isn't it?
So who is it for and what are their needs? How does CSDB best serve them?
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 |
| |
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 |
