Countdown to v1

[CamDawg]

We're done with betas.

 

One of the development issues facing us now is going to be providing a stable release while still adding fixes--the pending forum remains long and ugly. I see one of two possible solutions, and I'd like feedback from the team as well as players:

1. Beta 4, once any bugs are worked out, becomes v1 with no new fixes. At the same time, the v2 series is started, based upon v1 but with new fixes. So at any given time, players could choose between v1 or a v2 beta of the Fixpack. Once v2 becomes stable, then v3 beta appears, and so on and so forth.
   
2. Beta 4, once any bugs are worked out, becomes v1 and any new fixes go into a beta component. Only one package is available at a time with a stable core fixes and beta stuff in an optional component. (This allows players to select between getting the maximum number of fixes versus only fixes that have been deemed 'stable'). As fixes in the beta component get tested in the real world, they 'graduate' (for lack of a better word) into the core fixes of future versions.
   

Right now, many new fixes are combined with existing ones for maintainability. In this respect, option #1 has an advantage. However, I think the maintenance of two separate packages outweighs it--I think option #2, particularly keeping everything in one release, would be a better option for development and players.

 

Thoughts?

[Gorilym]

IMHO the second option would be preferable - maintaining two separate builds at all times seems like a waste of resources. Having "beta components" might also make it easier to isolate bugs, methinks.

[SaphirJD]

Not really important for this thematic - but another question - is bg with the v4 beta fixpack playable without any larger gameplay problems? or can i update without fear from v.3 now up to v.4?

 

And to the question... version 2 sounds good

[cmorgan]

option2, please, with the following comments:

• This means that you will need to follow some kind of naming convention to separate out what version the optional components are. For example, BG1 NPC started using "chevalier#" because we (I) thought we would have no changes on the Tutu side, but knew there would be tons of stuff on the BGT side... it has broken down somewhat, as we have found some things to fix on both sides, but the original idea was to identify internal changes in a set of components with internal names.
  
• Back in the summer, when I could think about this 24/7 (so, I'm driven ), I thought the best idea was to delay for a big set of clean changes. I have since found that I wished that I could get stuff out the door quicker, and into players hands - so I would definitely get the "beta" designation off of anything stable, and then let folks have the updates as quickly as possible.
  
• I would argue for releasing updated packages as fast as a fix can come in, since it would involve "beta" stuff, with a quick update of the sfx package and some internal naming convention as above. Or at least borrow Macready's idea of "hotfixes" to update the package!
  

[ronin69hof]

I actually prefer option 1. It will make it easier to trouble shoot problems if there are two completely different fixpacks. With verson 2 you would have to ask whoever installed it exactly what he installed from the optional components to be able to troubleshoot effectively.

 

ronin

[Shaitan]

I actually prefer option 1. It will make it easier to trouble shoot problems if there are two completely different fixpacks. With verson 2 you would have to ask whoever installed it exactly what he installed from the optional components to be able to troubleshoot effectively.

 

ronin

 

 

I agree

[CamDawg]

I think the idea is to have a single "incompletely tested fixes" component that includes everything that hasn't yet seen extensive playtesting

Yes, exactly. There would be a singular new component with all of the new fixes.

[berelinde]

Been thinking carefully about this one.

 

After a lot of debate, I think the second option, the one with just one version with optional fixes as an add-on, is the better option. Both options are good! But I think the second one offers something extra: all the fixes are already there, in the same file. "Graduating" the fixes would be nothing more than switching them to the "core".

[igi]

I vote option 1.

[devSin]

Without question, Option 1.

[seanas]

i'd be inclined to go with option 1, just from the point of view of advising endusers: it's easier and clearer to say 'Use Fixpack v2! not Fixpack v3 beta!' rather than 'Use Fixpack v2, but don't install component x!'

 

trying to tell BP users not to install the Super Happy Fun Lucky Modder Pack in some of the early Fixpack betas (as it had a conflict with BP) ended up with them not installing the Fixpack at all, but preferring to stick with BD-weidu 1.5 or (god help us all) BD-weidu v1.6. so i'd much prefer to be able ot say 'install this version, in its entirety' than 'install this component, but not that component'.

[Salk]

My personal preference goes to Option 2 because the new fixes component will be clearly presented by Wei-Du as experimental BETAs!

 

I know that lots of players are dumb (I am one of them) but I would guess that people who don't want any trouble will skip the beta fixes and go for a safe install.

 

Manteining two versions seems a real waste...

[Wounded_Lion]

I vote Option 1.

 

Also, maintaining two releases shouldn't be too difficult considering that the stable and beta versions will likely be 95% identical.

 

- D

[Andyr]

It's a tough call; I don't have a preference either way. Option 1 may be easier from an end-user's point of view, but is more work from yours!

[Kulyok]

I am an end user, so I prefer option 1.