lack of testing and working on new stuff?

[Crymson]

Is it really that difficult to actually test things before porting them into the stable branch?

Here is how this played out, http://developer.wz2100.net/ticket/1990.
In short, the first patch was reverted. Then the revert was reverted and a new patch applied, and it still is broken.
The reverted revert needs to be reverted again until it is fixed, and should be included in a stable branch only after it has been tested thoroughly in trunk. That is what should happen, but it is not. Can any dev explain the reasoning here?

On the subject matter, why work on new things when there are tons of bugs that should be fixed before more features are made?
This project is run like a bunch of chickens without heads.

When people actually want to help fix the bugs, they get treated like they are a idiot. http://developer.wz2100.net/ticket/1903
This is just so sad.

[JDW]

No software in the world is 100% bug-free, and even if there are, I'm sure they are very rare. The fact that almost every productive software on your computer has a built-in updating mechanism probably proves my point.

IMHO, there is no way ever to know when and if all the bugs have been squashed. And why hold back all the other great work that's worth having sooner than later?

EDIT: Players would very likely shy away from trying out beta releases, which would actually mean lesser vigorous testing than if it were to be released as a stable release. The current method is good because it provides the staff a lot to work with, imo.

[Zarel]

Erm. That's usually how it goes. You post a patch in a ticket, and wait for feedback. After a few days with no negative feedback, you commit the patch. If there are problems, you fix them. How else would you suggest it be done?

Vexxy's revert was temporary. He said "reverting so I can work on stuff", not "reverting because this patch should be tested more thoroughly before it can be committed again", so as far as I know it was safe to commit my fixed version.

I did basic testing with several different maps, but I didn't test Rush, so I didn't notice its problem in skirmish. More in-depth testing is usually done in-branch, where we found the first bug and fixed it, and are in the process of fixing the second bug, which would go a lot smoother if you actually tried to help instead of just yelling "it's broken and it's all your fault". I mean, at least tell me what's wrong with it.

I've never really thought of "commit to trunk first" as a necessary intermediate step. I've nearly always committed to both branches simultaneously. I mean, it's not like we're releasing 2.3-branch as 2.3.2 immediately.

As for wanting to help fix the bugs, I don't believe you were treated as an idiot there. We weren't sure if your patch was the right solution, so we discussed it first. Happens to everyone. My second patch didn't get accepted immediately, either. Per voiced a bunch of concerns. And then, funny thing, I fixed the problems Per talked about, instead of whining about how I was being oppressed or something.

[Powzone]

Hey, keep cool! Every program has a line not needed and every program has one bug...

...except for this one:
10 PRINT"HELLO!":GOTO10

No flaming here! Just joking!!!

BTW: "C64 Basic V2" is the only thing I ever programmed something!!

[Crymson]

Erm. That's usually how it goes. You post a patch in a ticket, and wait for feedback. After a few days with no negative feedback, you commit the patch. If there are problems, you fix them. How else would you suggest it be done?

Most projects do the commits in the unstable branch, then after a few weeks of testing, it then is ported over to stable if deemed worthy.

Vexxy's revert was temporary. He said "reverting so I can work on stuff", not "reverting because this patch should be tested more thoroughly before it can be committed again", so as far as I know it was safe to commit my fixed version.

you got some odd nick names for your teammates.

I did basic testing with several different maps, but I didn't test Rush, so I didn't notice its problem in skirmish. More in-depth testing is usually done in-branch, where we found the first bug and fixed it, and are in the process of fixing the second bug, which would go a lot smoother if you actually tried to help instead of just yelling "it's broken and it's all your fault". I mean, at least tell me what's wrong with it.

It wasn't just rush, it was also urban, and a few others as well.
The problem is obvious with just some normal testing, start a multiplayer game, then host, and you can't. It can't find any maps now.

I've never really thought of "commit to trunk first" as a necessary intermediate step. I've nearly always committed to both branches simultaneously. I mean, it's not like we're releasing 2.3-branch as 2.3.2 immediately.

All patches should get testing done in a unstable branch, otherwise you run into these issues every time.

As for wanting to help fix the bugs, I don't believe you were treated as an idiot there. We weren't sure if your patch was the right solution, so we discussed it first. Happens to everyone. My second patch didn't get accepted immediately, either. Per voiced a bunch of concerns. And then, funny thing, I fixed the problems Per talked about, instead of whining about how I was being oppressed or something.

Of course you would say that. I don't expect you to notice how incredibly rude you treat others, since you appear to have different rules for different people.

[Zarel]

Of course you would say that. I don't expect you to notice how incredibly rude you treat others, since you appear to have different rules for different people.

I wouldn't say "rude" is exactly the right word. I simply don't refrain from telling you you're wrong when you're wrong, because I notice you're the kind of person who does the same.

Don't take this to mean I dislike you, though. A few weeks ago, I was considering promoting you to moderator (seriously, ask the other devs if you don't believe me).

If you would like me to be more polite, though, I can do that.

[stiv]

Vexxy's revert was temporary. He said "reverting so I can work on stuff",

The actual msg was
revert r11112 --can't test things if you only have 10secs before you win

Without reverting that, the game would only run for a short time, hardly enough to test anything. It needed to be reverted so everyone else could continue to work & play. Reverting broken commits is not uncommon.

No comment on the attempted bribery.

[Zarel]

The actual msg was
revert r11112 --can't test things if you only have 10secs before you win

Without reverting that, the game would only run for a short time, hardly enough to test anything. It needed to be reverted so everyone else could continue to work & play. Reverting broken commits is not uncommon.

Well, yes, my point was that reverting a commit so you could continue testing isn't the same thing as blocking it from being committed again once it's been fixed.

No comment on the attempted bribery.

I said I had considered it as evidence that I don't have anything personal against him; I wasn't offering to.

[Crymson]

Of course you would say that. I don't expect you to notice how incredibly rude you treat others, since you appear to have different rules for different people.

Don't take this to mean I dislike you, though. A few weeks ago, I was considering promoting you to moderator (seriously, ask the other devs if you don't believe me).

That is a odd thing to interject here. It looks more like an attempt for appeasement than anything else.

If you would like me to be more polite, though, I can do that.

Nobody should have to tell you that.

The issue is that you never want to admit you were wrong and then you try to gloss over the original complaint by either changing the subject or by interjecting other subject matter that has little to do with the original topic.

[Zarel]

That is a odd thing to interject here. It looks more like an attempt for appeasement than anything else.

It isn't. It's exactly what it claims to be: A clarification that I do not dislike you, since it seemed like you were interpreting otherwise.

Nobody should have to tell you that.

I mean that while I try to be both sincere and polite, when they conflict, I prefer to be sincere with you instead of polite.

This is because I noticed that you are never polite even when it would not conflict with your sincerity, so I thought you preferred me to be sincere as well.

The issue is that you never want to admit you were wrong and then you try to gloss over the original complaint by either changing the subject or by interjecting other subject matter that has little to do with the original topic.

Not really. I often admit that I am wrong, when I am wrong. I do, however, tend to claim that I am not wrong when I believe I am not wrong, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

When a posts criticizes me or rebuts one of my own posts, I usually take the time to reply to every individual part of that post, to show that I am not glossing over points brought up by the person I am talking to.

And although I do have my flaws, I've never really considered changing the subject to be one of them. Could you give an example?

[lav_coyote25]

just a quick question here: being as the topic is about testing and working on new stuff or the lack thereof, is this on or off topic already??? just askin...

[Zarel]

just a quick question here: being as the topic is about testing and working on new stuff or the lack thereof, is this on or off topic already??? just askin...

Parts are somewhat off-topic, but not enough to warrant a thread split.

And as for the parts that are off-topic, that's because others are changing the subject. I've done nothing but reply to subjects brought up in other posts.

[lav_coyote25]

i know, thats why i was askin... will continue to monitor, as usual.

[stiv]

then you try to gloss over the original complaint by either changing the subject or by interjecting other subject matter that has little to do with the original topic.

This is a common debating trick. The popular description is "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with bullsh*t"

It works in the dorm room, but it really is out of place in a technical or engineering discussion.

[EvilGuru]

On the subject matter, why work on new things when there are tons of bugs that should be fixed before more features are made?

Because I/we can. It is as simple as that. Overall, when someone contributes their time to the project, the project benefits. Now -- unfortunately -- it is not possible to dictate how people who contribute to the project do so. If I want to go bug hunting, I'll go bug hunting, if I want to add stored templates functionality, I'll do that. Either way the project benefits. But do not assert the fallacious argument that we should be fixing bugs as opposed to working on 'new' things. Put simply: if I was not working on something new I probably wouldn't be working at all on Warzone. It is just not how I divide up my time.

Polemically yours, Freddie.