wesnoth 1.8 released
Jon Ciesla
limb at jcomserv.net
Thu Apr 8 19:42:16 UTC 2010
Kåre Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 20:34, Jon Ciesla <limb at jcomserv.net> wrote:
>
>> Kåre Fiedler Christiansen wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 17:47, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>>> I think for F12 you might let it sit in testing for a month or so to let
>>>> people switch when they want. This isn't perfect as some people may not
>>>> know
>>>> the update is there. I think it should eventually be in F12 as people
>>>> playing
>>>> multiplayer are going to want 1.8.
>>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> I for one would be extremely miffed if any update in F12 would make my
>>> savegame non-functional.
>>>
>>> If 1.8 breaks savegame compatibility, I really think it should not be
>>> pushed before F13.
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> This is exactly the 1.4>1.6 debate, practically verbatim, and why I'm
>> leaning towards Bruno's proposal ( :) ). People who primarily play online
>> are adamant that we update a stable release. People who primarily play solo
>> are adamant that we do not update a stable release. I happen to primarily
>> play solo, and I'm running a local build of 1.8, so that's no help. :)
>>
>> Unless I hear a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth in the next few
>> days, I'll probably proceed with Project Bruno.
>>
>> I'd also like to hear from wtogami, the co-maintainer, but I've not heard
>> from him since he changed jobs, though I have his new email.
>>
>
> I'm a little confused as to what that means.
>
> Bruno's suggestion seems to be that the updated will be pushed in a
> month or so. How does that help anyone?
>
> The online gamers probably want it now. The solo-players don't want it
> at all. How will it help to delay anything a month? That just makes
> no-one happy. If I need to be hit with an unwanted update, I might as
> well get it now as in a month. I still vote no (and have already
> blacklisted Wesnoth updates until this thread is resolved), but if
> it's decided to push an update the breaks savegames, I fail to see
> what is won by waiting a month.
>
> My understanding has always been that within the same Fedora release,
> I should expect to be able to do updates without anything breaking
> functionality. To me, this feels like pushing a major version of, say,
> gnumeric, that wouldn't read my old files; and doing so
> mid-Fedora-release.
>
> Best,
> Kåre
>
What about leaving it updates-testing indefinitely? That way people who
really want it can get it without , and those who don't or don't opt in
won't?
-J
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
More information about the games
mailing list