DavidW Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Version 8 of the Fixpack has been released - it's basically just a translation update (French and Italian), though I've taken the opportunity to update WEIDU and fix the very small bug in v7 spotted by Wisp. Link to comment
jon-eli Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I hate to be a nuisance... In fact, don't listen to a word I'm about to say. But someone has to say it: Is there a reason why a translation update and a bugfix warrant an increment of the major revision number? I know how anal-retentive that sounds, but I just can't get over the fact that a maintenance revision is being inflated by a factor of 100, and that Nythrun added vastly more to the fixpick in her two minor revisions than what's been added in the last two major revisions. With that said, I'm amazingly grateful that you're not letting the fixpack languish. Props. Link to comment
the bigg Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The fixpack uses a major only notation for archives updates. Nyth's patches used a minor number because they weren't updating the main archive, but were an additional download. Link to comment
jon-eli Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 The fixpack uses a major only notation for archives updates. Nyth's patches used a minor number because they weren't updating the main archive, but were an additional download. Well that's fair enough, I suppose... But it's hardly a hardcoded feature of the archive, it's just a convention which someone along the line has decided on. And I'd imagine that major-only notation stemmed partly from the fact that we used to accumulate a little more content before releasing updates. I'm just a little worried that 6 months from now I'll be staring at BG2 Fixpack v300. Link to comment
Guest Guest_erik_* Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I'm just a little worried that 6 months from now I'll be staring at BG2 Fixpack v300. And that's a problem... how? It could be named after dog breeds instead, if that's more desirable? BG2 Fixpack 2009 vChihuahua! Link to comment
DavidW Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 The fixpack uses a major only notation for archives updates. Nyth's patches used a minor number because they weren't updating the main archive, but were an additional download. Well that's fair enough, I suppose... But it's hardly a hardcoded feature of the archive, it's just a convention which someone along the line has decided on. And I'd imagine that major-only notation stemmed partly from the fact that we used to accumulate a little more content before releasing updates. It's Cam's convention, but I don't feel especially minded to change it. The point of a version number, presumably, is to keep track of whether things have changed. Nothing needs to be conveyed via the version number as to how much has changed. If you want to tell that, check the readme (or in this case, the release blurb, which was pretty clear that this was translation-only). And the virtue of using only positive integers (or some other well-ordered set) is that you know that there wasn't a 6.34071 mixed in between v6 and v7. I'm just a little worried that 6 months from now I'll be staring at BG2 Fixpack v300. I think it's pretty unlikely. Fixpack isn't going to acquire new content unless DevSin or some other core-writer decides to add some. Failing which, we're talking bugfixes (which I hope to God aren't needed) or translation updates. Having said that, would it particularly matter if we were at v300? Link to comment
cmorgan Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 There are a few old threads around asking about version numbers and mods; consensus was that there was no consensus. Or organization. Or meaning. [off topic] If we can convince folks to use VERSION ~v#~ in their tp2 for ease of diagnosis via weidu.log, that would be way cool - that is in Fixpack, but not in all mods out there. Other than that, VERSION ~v1~ VERSION ~v1002a~ VERSION ~Chevalier_Rocks_As_A_Tester~ VERSION ~BlueMeany1~ VERSION ~KB10782~ VERSION ~Vistax64.CelticRose.RepairedTheReadme.12.15.2008~ doesn't seem to have much meaning in i.e. modding. [/offtopic] Link to comment
jon-eli Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Nothing needs to be conveyed via the version number as to how much has changed. This is the very point that is in contention. It's not peripheral to my argument that version numbers should be more meaningful; it's my argument in it's entirety. [...] you know that there wasn't a 6.34071 mixed in between v6 and v7. You know as well as I do that this is a strawman. The only real considerations for a user are: (i) Is the current release number higher than that of the copy I already have; and (ii) Is the update significant enough to warrant updating my local copy. In regards to (ii), major revision numbers are psychologically more significant than minor numbers. I find it a tad misleading to use them just because it's an established convention. Having said that, would it particularly matter if we were at v300? Yes. It's version inflation, and gives the impression that the fixpack has undergone much more revision and content-addition than it actually has. Having said all that, I do respect your position, and I'm not really asking you to change anything... I just felt an impulsive need to gripe about it, because it honestly bugs me. But I realize I'm probably the only person who has a problem with it, so I'll just change my local copy to v6.4 and be quiet. Link to comment
DavidW Posted February 20, 2009 Author Share Posted February 20, 2009 Nothing needs to be conveyed via the version number as to how much has changed. This is the very point that is in contention. It's not peripheral to my argument that version numbers should be more meaningful; it's my argument in it's entirety. OK, in that case, all I can say is: by and large G3 version numbers are not intended to convey any such information. Certainly, numbers for SCS, SCSII and WoP aren't; as far as I can interpret Cam's Tweakpack and Fixpack conventions, numbers for those mods aren't either. [...] you know that there wasn't a 6.34071 mixed in between v6 and v7. You know as well as I do that this is a strawman. I assure you that I have better things to do with my time than deliberately attack straw men, so you can infer that I don't intend it as such. I genuinely think non-integer version numbers are silly (and, iirc, so does Cam, hence the established conventions for FP and TP), for basically the reason I've given. (I don't think you quite meant "straw man", anyway.) The only real considerations for a user are: (i) Is the current release number higher than that of the copy I already have; and (ii) Is the update significant enough to warrant updating my local copy. In regards to (ii), major revision numbers are psychologically more significant than minor numbers. I find it a tad misleading to use them just because it's an established convention. It is unwise to use version numbers rather than the actual release note to make this call. Example: the current release is a major revision if you speak Italian or French, a pretty trivial revision otherwise. Conveying that information via a version number is obviously impossible. Having said that, would it particularly matter if we were at v300? Yes. It's version inflation, and gives the impression that the fixpack has undergone much more revision and content-addition than it actually has. Only if you assume that the version number is intended to convey any information about amount of content addition, which - as just noted - it isn't. (But incidentally: suppose that it was? In that case, the last release - v7 - contained a great deal of content (largely written by Nythrun) that wasn't in v6 (and the fact that most of that content was available in a hotfix doesn't affect that). The most recent release - v8 - is, as noted, a fairly major release for anyone whose first language is French or Italian. So even if I bought the general principle, I don't actually think we're violating it.) Link to comment
jon-eli Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 (I don't think you quite meant "straw man", anyway.) You're probably right about that. It was misapplied. I just thought it was rhetorically convenient that my point was being left by the wayside (or so I felt). I didn't mean to suggest any malice or slight-of-hand on your part. It is unwise to use version numbers rather than the actual release note to make this call. I was only suggesting that the numbers should support the release notes, rather than vaguely contradict them. the current release is a major revision if you speak Italian or French, a pretty trivial revision otherwise. Conveying that information via a version number is obviously impossible. Actually, you pretty much burst my bubble with this point. I never thought of the subjectivity factor. I still don't like it. But it's a matter of taste, I suppose. Link to comment
devSin Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 You can think of it as a "release" number if it would make you happier. This is the eighth public release of the G3 fixpack. It looked like David missed some content in the pending thread where Nythrun had fixes for assassin's poison weapon ability and other issues, so there will be a ninth release at some point in the future. Link to comment
Ardanis Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?showtopic=16544 http://forums.gibberlings3.net/index.php?showtopic=16556 Link to comment
DavidW Posted February 21, 2009 Author Share Posted February 21, 2009 You can think of it as a "release" number if it would make you happier. This is the eighth public release of the G3 fixpack. It looked like David missed some content in the pending thread where Nythrun had fixes for assassin's poison weapon ability and other issues, so there will be a ninth release at some point in the future. Unfortunately I think that quite a lot of the stuff Nythrun documented on the forums was in her local copy but not in the uploaded content - at least, I couldn't find it... Link to comment
Nythrun Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 It's true. I may (or may not) be able to recover that crud. No eta though Link to comment
devSin Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 It's all still in the pending forum (6.2 suggestions). Unless you had tons of unposted stuff, that's pretty much it. I probably wouldn't bother with the whackier stuff, but there are some fixes in there that should get rolled in. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.