Jump to content

New translation (please update!)


Recommended Posts

Posted

@Graion Dilach I'm won't say no to that!

Funnily enough, my Windows Defender is detecting a virus in the attached package above, I already contacted @Austin. Not saying that I think there is one inside, but apparently something that ticks off WD for some reason.

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, jastey said:

Funnily enough, my Windows Defender is detecting a virus in the attached package above, I already contacted @Austin. Not saying that I think there is one inside, but apparently something that ticks off WD for some reason.

I repackaged the files and PM them in a different format) Also I uploaded them in the first post again!

Edited by Austin
Posted

Yep, manually manipulation the tags after release (even the faulty one) is asking for a trouble. Just follow standard release process and everything will be fine.

Posted

@AL|EN Considering how many times this comes up lately... wouldn't it be better if IAP would receive an option to set the tp2 VERSION during packaging, derived from the tag somehow? That would massively decrease the error margin.

Posted

@Graion Dilach But that's the whole point, can't you see it? Do you know how many times tp2 version wasn't updated during new release and the 'I'm installing version x but the wierdu.log gives me version y' ping-pong happen?

IAP allows you to spot it after release, "Mod Release" commandline tool will prevents releasing faulty version in the first place (agree that setting it up is painful).

Posted

@AL|EN I find the opposite of your workflow more logical and elegant. In your workflow, you derive the git tag from the tp2 version string and your proposal necessitates one to have a local automation to prepare for the packaging automation. What I'm proposing is to derive the version string from the git tag instead. This is less invasive to a personal workflow (because it does not need any local preparation step or a separate tool) at the cost of a more complicated packaging automation and at the possibility of introducing a difference between the source (having a placeholder version string) and the packaged version (which, considering how much you favor anti-tampering mechanisms, might be even a bonus to you). You can look at OpenRA to see how that works in practice (and it works well there because this mindset was deployed in 2015, got copied into the official ModSDK at it's start in 2017 and over the years I never heard anyone ending up with a wrongly tagged release when proper tagging is relevant there because differently tagged builds are not multiplayer-compatible).

Also, you're using your lecturing tone again. I don't like that.

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...