Per wrote:vexed wrote:
We had people in the forums make a few tools to edit the stats (2 windows only, 1 cross-platform made recently), and going to ini without tool support was a hasty, premature decision.
Don't bitch at me for not supporting tools I can't run.

You can use wine...but that is besides the point. You changed it without looking at the available tools we have now.
As for the diffs, I don't know on linux, but there are visual diff programs that show you exactly what was changed on said line, so I don't think this is a valid argument at all.
Give us a decent way to diff CSV files, and I'll drop that argument against it. But that still won't make it extensible, which is a blocker.

Are you saying you don't see this when you look at commits ?
As far as extensibility goes, if you were to add data or remove data, then CSV is easy as pie.
With ini, you must manually add/remove that to every entry, and make sure you don't make any mistakes.
Yeah, some trivial code changes would be needed for CSV, but the same is true for the ini way of doing things, is it not ?
I know with ini you can ignore fields, but, it is still trivial to ignore fields with CSV as well.
That is only part of the problem.
The way Qt works with ini blows chunks
We use ini in a ton of places now. If you have issues with the ini reader, then this is not an argument against using the ini format for stats, it is an argument against the reader we use, and that is a totally separate issue.
Ok, I suppose that is true. I guess I can look around for another ini parser, but, I still am not happy with the way ini turned out.
It is fine for config stuff, but for everything else, not so much.
My # 1 priority/concern is ease in debugging. Everything else is secondary.