Login
User Name:

Password:



Register
Forgot your password?
Vote for Us!
auth_update crash
Dec 23, 2017, 10:15 pm
By Remcon
check_tumble
Dec 18, 2017, 7:21 pm
By Remcon
parse description bug
Dec 15, 2017, 10:08 pm
By Remcon
Couple bugs
Dec 12, 2017, 5:42 pm
By Remcon
Bug in disarm( )
Nov 12, 2017, 6:54 pm
By GatewaySysop
LoP 1.46
Author: Remcon
Submitted by: Remcon
LOP 1.45
Author: Remcon
Submitted by: Remcon
LOP Heroes Edition
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
Heroes sound extras
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
6Dragons 4.3
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
Users Online
CommonCrawl, Yahoo!, Yandex, Bing

Members: 0
Guests: 11
Stats
Files
Topics
Posts
Members
Newest Member
478
3,708
19,242
614
BenitoVirg
Today's Birthdays
There are no member birthdays today.
Related Links
» SmaugMuds.org » General » General Discussions » Bug fix listing suggestion
Forum Rules | Mark all | Recent Posts

Bug fix listing suggestion
< Newer Topic :: Older Topic >

Pages:<< prev 1, 2, 3 next >>
Post is unread #1 Dec 16, 2007, 9:51 am   Last edited Dec 16, 2007, 9:54 am by Quixadhal
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Quixadhal
Conjurer
GroupMembers
Posts398
JoinedMar 8, 2005

Hi, it's me again.

I was going through the SmaugFUSS bug forum to see what bug fixes were newer than the last release, and it occured to me that it might be good practice to add a line at the top of each posting that just says something like "Fix included in SmaugFUSS 1.8" or similar. That way, it makes it easier to know which ones you need to apply, and which ones are already in place.

I know we can compare the posting date to the file date, but if someone replies to a post, it gets confusing as the reply date is the one you see first. Oh, nevermind... too early in the day. I see there are no replies in the bugfix sections. More coffee needed.

Happy holidays! (the shopping madness has made a couple streets around here look more like parking lots).
       
Post is unread #2 Dec 16, 2007, 1:26 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,639
JoinedJan 1, 2002

The general practice in posting a SmaugFUSS fix, for any of the 3 FUSS packages, is that once it's posted it's also in the codebase. There's never been much of a need to come out and actually say that the fix is applied, because they all have been. It wouldn't make any difference if there were replies to the official fix posts. :)
       
Post is unread #3 Dec 16, 2007, 6:59 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Conner
Sorcerer
GroupMembers
Posts870
JoinedMay 8, 2005

You know, actually it's not a bad idea to include which version a given fix has been added as of for posterity sake.. much like you do for the fixes posted on the QSFPortal site so folks know they can find the fix in the next update or they can apply it manually.
       
Post is unread #4 Dec 16, 2007, 7:29 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

David Haley
Sorcerer
GroupMembers
Posts903
JoinedJan 29, 2007

FWIW I'd also like to see a trace of what was fixed for which version. Not only would it be nice for posterity's sake as a history of sorts, but also it has the practical value of letting you know what isn't fixed if you go back to a previous version for some reason.
       
Post is unread #5 Dec 16, 2007, 7:32 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,639
JoinedJan 1, 2002

Yes, but again, this project isn't quite the same as other more "mainstream" projects where there's a running list of what's been broken between versions. When a fix is posted for SmaugFUSS, SWRFUSS, or SWFOTEFUSS, those packages are updated immediately following the last post of the day. So there would be no point in saying "This went into FUSS 1.8" because it's already there. If things were done on a more traditional level like AFKMud then I could see the value in it :)
       
Post is unread #6 Dec 16, 2007, 8:16 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

David Haley
Sorcerer
GroupMembers
Posts903
JoinedJan 29, 2007

I guess I'm not really understanding your opposition to this. :) It would be a simple matter of adding a line to all future bug reports to indicate which version of FUSS was current when the fix was supplied, so it's not as if it would be adding any work, and clearly there's demand for it, so ... :shrug:
       
Post is unread #7 Dec 17, 2007, 6:10 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Kayle
Off the Edge of the Map
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,195
JoinedMar 21, 2006

I don't see whats so hard to get.. If it's on the list, it's in the release available to download. If you really insist on going backwards to an older version, look at the date the version after the one you're using was added to the files section, and go back through bugfixes till you hit a date prior to that. Everything before that date on the list needs to be added.
       
Post is unread #8 Dec 17, 2007, 6:49 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

David Haley
Sorcerer
GroupMembers
Posts903
JoinedJan 29, 2007

Well then, Kayle, allow me to rephrase my question: why is there opposition to a feature so trivial to implement, and that furthermore at least three people would like to see? :shrug:
       
Post is unread #9 Dec 17, 2007, 10:40 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Metsuro
Apprentice
GroupMembers
Posts68
JoinedSep 2, 2006

Well in theory lets say someone didn't want to use 1.8 and somehow got say... 1.6 but they still wanted to correct the bugs, how would they know which ones are in 1.7 and up? Because they are already in 1.8? So that means they'd have to go through just about every fix to know what to add?
       
Post is unread #10 Dec 17, 2007, 11:23 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

David Haley
Sorcerer
GroupMembers
Posts903
JoinedJan 29, 2007

A problem with doing it with dates as Kayle suggested is that FUSS dates aren't very solid like other projects; a version is a very mutable thing -- relying on the timestamp isn't that reliable to begin with. Furthermore, older versions might be reuploaded, thus destroying the timestamp you would use for Kayle's method anyhow.
       
Post is unread #11 Dec 17, 2007, 11:35 am   Last edited Dec 17, 2007, 11:36 am by Kayle
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Kayle
Off the Edge of the Map
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,195
JoinedMar 21, 2006

Why do people want to start working with a previous version when the newest version already has all the listed bugfixes?
       
Post is unread #12 Dec 17, 2007, 11:57 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

David Haley
Sorcerer
GroupMembers
Posts903
JoinedJan 29, 2007

- Desire to not have features from new version
- Custom codebase branched off of old version, too hard to upgrade or otherwise incorporate new version's stuff directly
- Historic purposes

#2 is probably the most salient reason. #3 clearly isn't that important to you personally but I don't think you speak for everybody there. :wink:
       
Post is unread #13 Dec 17, 2007, 11:58 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Remcon
Geomancer
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,868
JoinedJul 26, 2005

Shrug, I have personally went with earlier releases because maybe something was added/removed in a later version that I didn't want etc... Normally though ill decide which would be more time consuming: adding the fixes or removing what I don't want lol
       
Post is unread #14 Dec 17, 2007, 12:17 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Kayle
Off the Edge of the Map
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,195
JoinedMar 21, 2006

DavidHaley said:

but I don't think you speak for everybody there.


Clearly the same can be said for you.

The original post date for the file will still show you where to begin adding bugfixes. An example.

The original date for FUSS 1.8 to be added to the Files section was October 9th. so you would then go into the BugFix Forum and start double checking fixes from after that date.
       
Post is unread #15 Dec 17, 2007, 2:17 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,639
JoinedJan 1, 2002

Kayle's methodology is pretty sound. When the major version numbers change over, the previous one stops development except for package crippling problems like a Makefile not working or some other massive failure.

From that point forward, the posted fixes only go into the current version. Even if I were to begin putting "this was fixed in FUSS 1.8" on each post, that would lead to some confusion since right now the current maintained version is 1.8, and those fixes are already there. So it definitely becomes less than useful.

Tracking back to the date of the original package upload is the best existing method we have. Short of me getting off my lazy ass and finishing the QSFP bug tracking module I was writing at one time.
       
Post is unread #16 Dec 17, 2007, 6:48 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Metsuro
Apprentice
GroupMembers
Posts68
JoinedSep 2, 2006

Is it the best, or easiest you mean? I dont think having to sift through pages of fixes because I use 1.6 is the best way to go through things, it might be the easiest thing for you though.
       
Post is unread #17 Dec 17, 2007, 7:02 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Darwin
Fledgling
GroupMembers
Posts37
JoinedOct 10, 2007


DavidHaley said:

- Desire to not have features from new version
- Custom codebase branched off of old version, too hard to upgrade or otherwise incorporate new version's stuff directly
- Historic purposes

#2 is probably the most salient reason. #3 clearly isn't that important to you personally but I don't think you speak for everybody there. :wink:
I second this, specifically #2, just as David has stated. Many times I have wanted to upgrade to a new version but found it to be too much of a hassle because of all the custom code and modifications already added.

Is this really too much to ask for?
       
Post is unread #18 Dec 17, 2007, 7:30 pm   Last edited Dec 17, 2007, 7:32 pm by Kayle
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Kayle
Off the Edge of the Map
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,195
JoinedMar 21, 2006

Metsuro said:

Is it the best, or easiest you mean? I don't think having to sift through pages of fixes because I use 1.6 is the best way to go through things, it might be the easiest thing for you though.


You don't have to sift through pages of fixes. If you're using 1.6 You look at when the original post date for the 1.7 package was released, and you find that Date. It shouldn't be more than a page maybe 2 back.

Darwin said:

Many times I have wanted to upgrade to a new version but found it to be too much of a hassle because of all the custom code and modifications already added.


I just went through this. I started with Smaug 1.4a and added all the bugfixes that were here. When it came about that I would be writing the new weather Model that would be included in a future FUSS Release, I upgraded to the current version, which was 1.8. Since finishing the weather system I've been adding all my modification in. It's actually been really beneficial. I've noticed things I did wrong and should have done a different way, and redoing all of my old changes has actually given me a lot of new ideas for ways to expand older systems.

Personal experience shows me that this is a faulty argument because the cons of having to rewrite code, and possibly find things that could have been done better, far outweighs having to reapply all my custom systems and modifications. After all, it's only taken me about a month and a half and I've already re-applied 90% of 3 years worth of work, with this base in question, and it's better written, using better techniques.

[Edit]: Besides, Do you really mean to tell me that you're asking Samson to go through and edit 9 pages of forum posts to show which version they were originally fixed in? That seems kind of.. Well.. Stupid to me.
       
Post is unread #19 Dec 17, 2007, 7:43 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Metsuro
Apprentice
GroupMembers
Posts68
JoinedSep 2, 2006

Are you seriously asking people to waste a month, rather then one guy wasting 3 hours? That seems kind of... Well..Stupid to me? *tongue*
       
Post is unread #20 Dec 17, 2007, 8:06 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Kayle
Off the Edge of the Map
GroupAdministrators
Posts1,195
JoinedMar 21, 2006

I'm not asking anything of anyone. I was merely pointing out that it isn't that big of a deal to start over. Thanks for playing the David card, and putting words in my mouth though, well played.
       
Pages:<< prev 1, 2, 3 next >>