How good is good enough?

[Dark Nation]

At what point should the current (at that time) list of bugs be listed as "trivial" and 2.5 be released? Just as with adding new features, if we continue to attack any bug, no matter how small, 2.5 will never happen. So, as the title says, how good is good enough? All reproducible bugs of the program crashing, quest breaking (as in you can't finish), or file corrupting kind are definitely priorities and a release shouldn't happen if any of those are still around if possible. But what else should be considered a release delaying bug and what should be classified as something to fix for 2.51?

[Freedom]

I think the bugs that are already reported and still in need of fixing should be fixed.
2 good examples are the splitting darknuts crashing the player and the string editor...
The string editor I don't know a lot about.
I don't know what should and shouldn't work, I understand that colored text was a goal, does that work?
If all it is, is what it was before at this point, can the old one be put back in, since adding text in the new one is such a pain?
You can't scroll to the end as it is, so if you do a typo in the third sentence it means rewriting the whole string which is a pain.
If the other features in it are working, then maybe that one issue just needs fixed.

One of my main worries is that if we get a stable release will the next build then play the quests that are built with it?
Is _L_ going to make drastic changes to the enemy editor, for example, that will then break older quests?
If that's a possibility then maybe he should look at the best way to address that now before a release is made.

My main reason for starting this discussion about this today was to get anyone testing focusing on the basic engine and those bugs, because it seems like testing kind of dropped off.
I know that many people are playing LI right now, and once they get through it, they will probably even have more incentive to test, because they will want to get back to their own quests, but it sure would be nice to have a build that you can count on not changing to do that in. ;)

[Dark Nation]

One of my main worries is that if we get a stable release will the next build then play the quests that are built with it?
Is _L_ going to make drastic changes to the enemy editor, for example, that will then break older quests?
If that's a possibility then maybe he should look at the best way to address that now before a release is made.

Well there will probably be a 2.6 or 2.7 in the current 2.x strain and I'm sure they would be backwards-compatible. However, at some point, there will be a 3.0, which may not be compatible with the current versions (as it might be a near complete rewrite of the code). An external conversion program would be made to upgrade quests to 3.0 (though they probably wouldn't be playable without modification in ZQuest).

I envision ZC 3.0 as having:

15/16-bit or 24-bit color support (with pixels/tiles/combos having individual transparency settings)
fully scriptable enemies, weapons, items, rooms, dmaps, etc. (scripts would still be completely optional; this still won't be OpenZelda)
custom screen sizes (with Z3-style scrolling)
custom subscreen styles/placement
better support for multiple quest authors
full-featured enemy/item/weapon editors (though the current ones are pretty good already)
integrated screen layers (though the current layer system might still be available) with customizable layer ordering and ranged transparency options (as opposed to the on/off currently in use)
OS-native GUI
multiple floors for maps (b2, b1, f1, f2, f3, etc.)


Just ideas I'm kicking around.

[hello]

Well are you going to put some of the stuff from other versions in there like z3 stile movment,and makeing your own enemys plus dont you think you should delete the bugs before you release the version just a thought but i'm sure someone sujested that already but a new version would be good.ether way you guys are the pros i'll leave it to you dont disopoint us all.


And dont forget to add the fixed sfx thing becuse on version 2.11 it crashed my version every time I added a new sfx and that same thing broke my good computer now I can never use it again so please fix all the bugs on your versions before releaseing them I dont want my new computer to get broke.

[SpykStorm]

I have a question, Is there going to be a 250test quest?

[The_Amaster]

When you say backwards compatable, I'm assuming that you mean you can play older quests in the new player. But do you also mean you can play newer quest in the old player? Because that would mean all of the features would have to be next to inconsequental.

[Petoe]

Well I have been wondering a long time if ZC can ever be truly bugfree, because it just seems like the stream of bugs is endless for ZC. Every time a bug has been fixed, a new one is born.
Now we finally got an answer, which is no. But it is ok as long as the bugs are so minor that people won't really even notice them. It is ok also because trying to get ZC 100% bugfree would take forever and that wouldn't be any fun now would it? :P

But instead of releasing a potentially buggy Zc 2.5, why not release a Beta 18 or something first to test that thoroughly and then if it is good enough, call it ZC 2.5 and if not, then make some fixes and call the fixed version Zc 2.5?

[bigjoe]

Personally, I'd drop the "Lets have a million billion betas" philosophy, and go for a "Lets go from version to version" philosophy, like the oldest days.

[Freedom]

That's about what I was saying Petoe.
I think there is a chance that bugs may show up at some future point, like they did with 2.10, so it seems that releasing a version that we believe to be good, and then tweaking it to perfection as time progresses might be the way to go, sort of like what happened with 2.10.2, and then saying "this is THE version" until at some point in the future a new stable version is released.
That way people could build quests again, and they could drop copies as they build into the new betas to test as well, that way quest building will be their hobby again and bug testing will be done to further the cause.
Right now I'm really afraid that I'll end up losing what I have again with SwanSong ~ Genesis, which is what I started building when Robinhood went down the drain.

I can't build a quest under the circumstances that are present right now.
I went back and did major repair jobs to Robinhood twice, and by then I lost all concentration of where I was and where I was going with it, so it became easier to shelve it and just start a new quest.
Now I'm worried that will happen again, BUT if there was a stable version it wouldn't be an issue, because I wouldn't have to worry about it becoming corrupted and having to go back and spend days or weeks rehashing things that were done long ago.
and.... at this point, there is just no way to go back to 183 or 2.10, they are too far in the past.

I don't see a version of ZC ever being finished, additions will always continue, and with each thing added, something else will be requested to go along with it, so getting a stable release and then releasing it, and then tweaking it to perfection over time seems like the wisest way to go, because then everyone will have a solid engine to fall back on.
In addition, the Devs could continue doing what they like best, adding new features (L) ;) and would only be called away from that to look at a bug that may have surfaced in the "Stable Release".

[Nicholas Steel]

yep, this means that documentation needs to still be done and revised :) the source code for the stable release to be properly documented and backed up in case updates to that version are needed.

petoe, that most likely is gonna happen because its moronic to not do so :P (releasing a new beta prior to stable build)

backwards compatible is NOT forwards compatible amaster.

[Petoe]

Well, yeah, franpa. I'm not doubting the develoeprs, I mean DN wouldn't repeat a mistake I am sure, but just had to state the obvious. It would be great to have a so called stable version in the near future, but let's not call it the official ZC 2.5 before it has been thoroughly tested, eh? :)

Oh and I totally forgot to mention about documentation, which is almost the biggest issue that has to be fixed before the release of full ZC 2.5 IMO! >_<
I mean the least that could be done is to finally update the zquest.txt, that one is from stone age... is anyone doing anything about that?

[Nicholas Steel]

there are secret organizations, rumors and hushed whispers of people doing the documentation... i havnt found any solid proof, like people have said there doing it, but they dont give a rough percentage on completion of a rough draft...

[DarkDragon]

I absolutely endorse the idea of a b18 as soon as most critical bugs have been squashed, if only to encourage more testing and get a good idea of what bugs are still out there.

I don't feel too good about simply declaring 2.50 "good enough" and releasing it with bugs still unresolved.
Let's be completely honest here: any bugs which aren't fixed by the time 2.50 is released, probably never will be once we return to adding new features. ZC has garnered a reputation for being bug-ridden, and the only way to shake that is to publish a rock-solid release. It doesn't feel right to me to do anything half-assed, and I don't want ZC to become known as the OS/2 of game creation systems.
Of course, I also understand the users' desire for a quick release, and will accept whatever decision is ultimately made here.

[Shoelace]

I vote on a beta 18. Because basically, I have been waiting for the beta 18. The reason: Beta 18 in my eyes is like the final version with minor bugs. Then, we will all attack the bugs and get beta 18 to be as stable as possible, so that there be as stable as can be version. I understand, that there is, what should stable be? I think it is as Petoe put it: "But it is ok as long as the bugs are so minor that people won't really even notice them."

[Gleeok]

Yes, I agree with DD. Fix crash and major bugs. Major annoyances and things that don't work right, Backwards compatability issues (I think those are all gone) and anything else the devs want to squash. Then b18 will be good and it will be something that everybody will want to upgrade their quest to, which will aid in the finding of bugs.

It's the perfect plan.....or was it? Stay tuned. ;p

[Stungun]

I say, consider making each new MAJOR beta release (e.g. beta 18, 19, 20, etc.) be focused on implementing a SINGLE feature, all other features are locked until that one feature is implemented and debugged.

Beta releases are for single features, builds are for debugging, and major releases are for milestones where there are new features and only minor, barely noticeable bugs, that don't affect gameplay much (if at all).

For example: Build 403, 512, or whatever number it's at next, is where you're trying to fix major bugs, like for example the common crashes while tile editing, slow loading, and so on. When those bugs are mostly gone, release Beta 18 and finish up drown-water; After that, beta 19 would add another feature or enhance an existing one (such as adding new subscreen elements or allowing hearts/magic to be displayed in a raw numeric form via a 'counter'), beta 20 would add another, and so on - Release builds off these betas to clean up bugs if needed. When many features have been added and you can be sure that most the visible bugs are fixed, release a 2.x version.

Just my $0.02 on the issue.

[The_Amaster]

I say, consider making each new MAJOR beta release (e.g. beta 18, 19, 20, etc.) be focused on implementing a SINGLE feature, all other features are locked until that one feature is implemented and debugged.


That's my whole "one feature build" idea, only, if the features are completely stable and functional, why make them beta's? Why can't they just be 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8?

[Freedom]

I like that idea too, if for no other reason that features get finished as they are implemented, instead of 40 half done features which only half work as expected.

[hello]

Also when you release a new ver while people are tyring to work with that just start fixing all the bugs you can. And add some new stuff and call it a upgrade not a new ver just a upgrade of the one that was released. And while people work with the upgrade that gives you a lot of time to start thinking about what the new ver will (have in it)and the lengh screens will be a BIG plus. But once again this is just what I was thinking and if I was the zc maker thats what I whould do.PLUS if your worryed about your quests just go in your zc folder take them out and put them on your new ver.=READ=but first copy your quest on the zc version your takeing it from then do what I said.Also when you make the upgrade people can still put the quests from the version to the upgrade becuse its a upgrade not a diffrent version.Hope that!! helped.


and hello freedom its been a long weekend

[Russ]

It think that before 2.5 is released, it should be fully compatible with Windows Vista. Right now, if you do not open ZC with Zlaunch, often times the computer will freeze up. At least include a help manula for people who are using Vista so they don't make the same mistakes as other people have.

[erm2003]

Vista Help Manual: Use ZC Launcher.

There, I made it!

Seriously, that's almost the only thing I have noticed as a "problem" with ZC when using Vista (except for a color issue, but when I keep on minimizing and maximizing it fixes itself). Even then the Lost Isle build works fine without the Launcher, so who knows. It may completely depend on things outside of ZC so there may not be much control over it right now.