almost bug free? [Archive] - Armageddon Games Forums

Anthus

01-14-2010, 05:38 AM

I think it might be your computer then. Build 1089 runs just fine for me (on my laptop). It has not crashed once on my laptop, and I actually use it quiet a bit (contrary to quest progress). The only issue I have is if I run ZQ in big mode in full screen, it botches some of the colors. However, this is a Windows issue, not a ZC issue, and it can be fixed by Right clicking ZQ-> Compatibility-> 'Run in 256 colors'. That works for the player as well, which runs in full screen just fine too. So seriously, instead of whining about how many bugs you have encountered, see what you can do on your end first. The devs work hard enough, and they don't need to be told that their product is a "Bug infested piece of.."

I made a topic expressing my thanks to the devs. This is a free program. You get what you pay for, for better or for worse.

I don't see why you make these posts when you know how they'll be received. It would be different if you actually, I dunno, maybe tried to report some of these issues instead of throwing a temper tantrum every time. To be frank, why don't take some wisdom from the proverb, "If you can't say something nice (or in this case, constructive) then why say anything at all?"

Freedom

01-14-2010, 01:15 PM

Nothing wrong with my computer, and I've spent years of my life testing and reporting bugs.
Have you?
The problem remains the same, instead of trying to fix what is there, more things get added and existing things get changed, and the program remains the same, no more than a graphics play toy.
My posts, as you say, may not be well received, but they've turned out to be prophetic, exactly what I said would happen almost 3 years ago, has happened.

Let me put it this way for you Anthus...
I have 2 quests in my computer here, with over 2 years of hard work combined in the two.
One of them was close to release with the 211-10b, and moving it to the b12 corrupted it beyond repair, so I started another which meant going back to an older version of my tileset and then having to update it to where I now was.
The nature of the corruption was such that it also got my back ups, because it was in the combos and wasn't noticed right away.
Just last night with the 1099 it almost happened again, to the newer of the two quests.
The program may be free, but if it continues to destroy years of work, then it is overpriced at that.
I give my quests away for free too.
If I decide to adopt your attitude, then that tells me that it's ok for me to release them buggy as hell, so instead of people enjoying them, they just end up frustrated beyond belief, and then when they get frustrated my reply can be... "hey, what the fuck did you expect... it's free"
I guess you haven't noticed the growing lack of interest, the bug forums get less posts in a week then they used to get in a day, and there hasn't been any notable quests released in a long while.

I really would like to release this quest one day, but I guess you're right, bitching hasn't worked, helping hasn't worked, and being silent hasn't worked, so I guess that only leaves acceptance that it's just never going to happen.

Anthus

01-16-2010, 04:30 AM

I can't say I entirely disagree with you, its just your way of insulting the developers. As for back-ups, I actually tend to duplicate the quest file manually, and give it a new name. This completely separates it from the whole thing. The only problem is if the corrupting factor exists before hand, and it triggered by something, then it is always there. Either way, backing up is kinda like a bullet proof vest. Bad shit still happens, so don't get a false sense of security.

But seriously, I can understand your frustration. As I already, I just think it is rude to say things in such a way about the program, even if it is what you feel is true. Also, I don't think they are adding any more new features, and I don't think they have for quite sometime. The last big thing added was probably Big Mode, but I actually don't follow updates as much as I used to, so I could be wrong.

Freedom

01-16-2010, 12:58 PM

you're right, what's the point in complaining, all been said before, and didn't matter then either.

Nicholas Steel

01-17-2010, 11:07 AM

The backup system should have no limit on the number of backups that can be created at any time. Instead of having say a total of 10 backups, the limit should be set to 9,999,999,999 backups. Aside from being able to create backups it shouldn't be able to interact with backup files until the user requests it to do so.

Maybe create backups as read only? that way after they are made, they can't be changed at a later point making them a truer backup?

rocksfan13

01-17-2010, 01:41 PM

I side with Freedom on this one.
I too was a victim of Quest corruption and was very pissed that I had to redo everything over again. The total lack of quest admissions, at least in the betas, in disconcerting. They still come in 2.10 and lower. But I haven't seen anything in a beta for about 2 years now.
It's about time we stop trying to add things and get down and clean up whats already there. Stabilize it there first then add if need be.
I do believe the testers are very frustrated and have "run away". Which gives the effect of what Freedom implies. Total lack of posting issues. Only the hope and prospect of a stable release may bring them back. Maybe a hypothetical date would work. But we've been down that road too.
I appreciate what the devs do. I really do. It's hard work and there's no profit in it for them. Only the joy of creation.
I salute them for it. But people are growing impatient. Empty promises fuel the fire of discord.
Make a promise and stick to it. It may bring people back to it again.

Anthus

01-17-2010, 02:37 PM

I pretty much agree here. it's just the way of wording it. As I said, I do think they are working on hammering out the new features as opposed to adding more new features.

pkmnfrk

01-17-2010, 02:40 PM

The backup system should have no limit on the number of backups that can be created at any time. Instead of having say a total of 10 backups, the limit should be set to 9,999,999,999 backups.

That would be the worst thing ever. Imagine when people start complaining that they have 200 Gigs of backups, and now they don't have any room for other stuff!

Anyway. Let me tell you this. It's been a long long time since I needed to use one of the backups, and I've had timed backups turned off for a long time (since they're so obtrusive). I'm far more worried about corruption in my ZC.sav file than in my quests.

Obviously, it's still a concern down the road, so perhaps a better proposal tuned to the way I suspect most people work (Open ZQuest, modify quest, save, open ZC, test, F6 quit, modify quest, save, test, etc.) is in order:

Create a "special" backup when the quest is opened or saved the first time in a session, and set it aside. Then, each time you save, create a normal backup. If you notice corruption, you can roll back to the speical backup which will be there forever, if you never close ZQuest.

I've been playing around with 1099 the last few days and find it to be far from anywhere close to bug free.
Why the 1099 you ask, because the 1121 crashes every 5 minutes.

Jman said the new betas were close to bug free...
which versions would those be?

It's a bug infested piece of....
well you know the rest, it ain't bug free, it's just not getting tested anymore because you ran all the testers off when they realized they weren't going to get rewarded for their hard work with a stable release.

been what.... 3 years now?

there's my rant.... I'll check back again in another 50 versions or so, good luck.

As for bugs in the engine, I agree that it's not bugfree. And, more than the "it will never be bug free, stop bitching" level, too. And, more than it was the last time you posted this thread. However, I trust they will stop making large sweeping changes, and focus on fixing bugs soon, right?

Anyway, I always run the latest beta, so that I can find bugs and report them. Anyone running an old beta is not doing anyone a favour by doing so. Bugs get fixed, new ones get introduced, it's the cycle of software development! *cue lion king music*

I don't find this extended period between releases particularly bad for two reasons:

1. We're getting interim builds to test stuff and report bugs, because...
2. Previous releases have not exactly been bug-free. Everyone of them has had show-stopping bugs (the crash-the-second-time-you-look-at-the-map bug, the DMap continue bug, the midi-instruments-are-fucked bug) which I don't want to see in an eventual 2.5 release.

Okay, random stream of thoughts, over.

Freedom

01-17-2010, 03:08 PM

To be honest I just can't understand the direction ZC has taken for the life of me.

If you really think about it, it doesn't make any sense at all.

I understand and appreciate all the features that have been added, it's a much better program today then it was with the 210
BUT it isn't getting a finalized version that can actually be used for it's intended use.

PureZC won't even allow quests to be added to the data base when they are built in one of these betas, so even if I decide to stick with one beta and build a quest, then I'd have to host it on my own for the most part, and release that beta with it.

IF there was a release, then quests could be built and released again for ONE common version and additions to the betas could continue as before.

ALL the major quest builders of old are waiting for that release
Players are waiting for the quest builders.

If it was a business then think of it like this...
It's 100 times harder to get back a customer you've lost, than it is to get a new customer, and if you've ever run a business, then you know how hard it is to get new customers.

It's said that "no new features are being added"
BUT in reality that isn't true.
With each update in the channel log you see that the scripting is being added to and improved.
That could go on forever, and each time a release comes out there are new bugs as a result of that.
So because of that, I have no hopes any longer that a stable release will ever come, and that "some" developers are bullshiting people by saying otherwise, and that adds to hard feelings

When I make posts I'm attacked for coming down on the developers.
well... there are some developers that have blown smoke, and brought that on themselves.
I don't bullshit them.

I'm not the only one, there are fewer posts here now in a week than there used to be in a day, across the board in all areas.
I'd like to see ZC come back, but that isn't up to me.

Shoelace

01-17-2010, 05:24 PM

Well, of course, you guys know where I stand but, I have to at least put something on this thread.

So 2.10 was released in I forget... 2004 I think. Okay, so me, I want to make games, that are accessible and will be for all crowds to enjoy. When I made HoD, I got 2.10 and I designed my game. Now 2.10 had bugs. It had the music bug, the Din's fire bug, sometimes crashed, Link Tile Mods, etc. But that was an official release. 2.10 was official. So I made my game, and I worked around the bugs. I worked my damnest to make the game with as few bugs as possible, and I think I made a pretty damn good game.

I am now making EotM. I still haven't really dove into production because the final release hasn't came out yet. Things were changing all of the time in the production that I had to keep forcing myself to update my game. Update bugs, new version, update bugs, etc. I am actually not mad about that, whatever, that is how betas are. So I wait for a release. There hasn't been a release since 2004, and I waiting for the next one. Then I will make my game on the official release and I will work around the bugs (as I know we can't get rid of them all), just like I did with 2.10. But, I just need an official release.

So, every year was going by, and we keep on hearing different things from the developers. Official release is 3 months (2006), after this addition we will focus to the official release, etc. etc. It is now 2010, 6 years after an official release, and we are still waiting. Yes, I am sorry, that we are impatient. But can you really blame us. Especially because we seem to be getting lied to. I just want someone to say, this is what we still need to add, and this is the estimated time. Instead of just ignoring us.

What I put together to create a timeline myself is this. Large Mode still has some additions needed to be added (old topic), and after that then they would go to the official release. That was more than a year ago. So, I check the ZC log every day, to see if those additions were put in. Still no, so I am thinking, that whenever that is done, probably 6 months of testing after that and then a release.

But I still want to hear some sort of plan, a timeline if you will, on 2.5. When do you think it will be done? What do you still need to add? How much time do you think that will take?

And those are just serious questions. I think we deserve to know, then rather being left in the dark and brushed off by: "Soon". I like to work with deadlines and timelines, I will help test if there was one, but honestly, I actually don't think there is a official release in my lifetime because that is how in the dark I feel, so I don't want put my time and effort if I don't think it will mean anything. I just need some sort of feedback, but I probably will still get the cold shoulder.

Joe123

01-17-2010, 06:55 PM

ALL the major quest builders of old are waiting for that release
Players are waiting for the quest builders.Some of us newer members know what we're doing too.

Pineconn

01-17-2010, 07:53 PM

pkmnfrk

01-17-2010, 07:54 PM

I'd be ultra-willing to test rigorously if a timeline were set, or a plan initiated. Right now everything is in limbo (as it's been for 4 years), but if an honest effort were initiated to get this done, we could do it quickly. Hopefully there are enough devs...

Why not test now, like I am, and like others are?

Pineconn, I've filed several bugs based on playing through your quests. You could do a world of good just by playing through them in 2.5 and filing bugs!

Freedom

01-17-2010, 09:29 PM

Why not test now, like I am, and like others are?

Pineconn, I've filed several bugs based on playing through your quests. You could do a world of good just by playing through them in 2.5 and filing bugs!

been there done that, and then more is added or changed and those very same bugs are reintroduced.
How many times do you plug a tire before you say this is BS and go get another one less troublesome?

Until a concerted effort is made to fix bugs and ONLY bugs and add no more and make no more changes, then what is the point?

pkmnfrk

01-17-2010, 09:38 PM

Freedom

01-17-2010, 10:32 PM

Pineconn

01-17-2010, 10:51 PM

Why not test now, like I am, and like others are?

Pineconn, I've filed several bugs based on playing through your quests. You could do a world of good just by playing through them in 2.5 and filing bugs!

Trust me, this is how I tested for bugs, too. Half of them are so complicated that the devs just let them rot. My latest slew of bugs was deleted in the forum's lastest hack, also, and I don't remember what was fixed or not.

Anthus

01-20-2010, 11:40 AM

After reading through this thread, I've come to realize people are right. At the rate it is going, it's likely ZC will never be finished. I really wish they would stop adding features, and to be honest, scripting has to to be the worst thing added. It is a mess, and will constantly need updating, and checking for consistency with older versions, which when certain outstanding bugs get fixed, this would break some quests relying on older scripting mechanics. People would bitch about broken scripts and quests, and as long as there are always updates, this will always happen. As far as features go, it's the same thing. If something that an older version relies on is changed, then bam, quest broken. This happened with one of my projects, when I realized that for some reason, permanent triggers aren't actually permanent in dungeons, or whatever it was. This was a game stopping bug that prevented me from completing a dungeon in Zelda TD. I did find a work around, but still, I'm sure it will be undone.

As much as I like the new stuff (except scripting) it is making alienating the user base, and slowing the progress of something we were supposed to get four years ago.

Pineconn

01-21-2010, 01:18 AM

And perhaps the worst tidbit is that there has been no dev commentary in this thread. Please, let's just have a concentrated effort to clean up 2.5. I'm finishing up my quest, so I'll be able to help beta test like no other.

Nicholas Steel

01-21-2010, 01:34 AM

Believe me, I want this release to happen too. I do wish they'd do a feature freeze as well, but there are certain things that are left half-implemented, which would arguably be worse! If people work around a half-baked feature, then suddenly it becomes difficult to fully implement it, because it would break every quest that worked around it.

You are aware of the intention to redevelop ZC from scratch after the next release right? Likely using something other then allegro or redoing everything in a more optimal way for current versions of allegro. sure there may be slight bug fix releases like a year or so after the official release, but anything major would be kept out of the release grade product for implementation in the freshly developing version.

Anyways yes I agree that 6 years is way too long, script additions and half working features related to scripting, should be ignored. Scripting is what sent the product along this 6 year joy ride and script development should be stopped to end this joyride. How long was it between stable releases before scripting was implemented? how long was the time gap between 1.90, 1.92b183/4, 2.10 and even older versions?

If you like to script either use what you have or continue to wait, all your doing is making it take an eternity to release a stable version because your always after a script language that can do everything and you want it done for a product that was never originally designed for scripting.

edit: I still think random corruption protection is worth more then saving disk space since people have said, they spend aaaages, years even, developing quests for us. Most quest authors who are good at ZQuest, likely know how to use Windows Expllorer and manage files also and can choose to delete old backups if they wish. Heck you could add a culling system that culls backups that are older then 'x' amount of months or something and have it enabled by default, but allow people to disable it if wanted, allowing infinite amount of backups of any age.

Make it so when a backup is made it is marked as "read only", that way future or current versions can't modify them in any way making them a true backup.

Gleeok

01-21-2010, 05:26 AM

Alright, I guess I'll reply here about some of these responses.

Something good: A few days ago I upgraded my quest file 'Grikarugun' to the newest build from build 887. The quest file is around 7MB and the script files alone are 3/4ths a MB. You might say there is a whole bunch of things going on inside that it could be easy for something to break. ...Well, I opened it in the player and played through it in it's entirety. Perfect. Not a single bug to speak of. In fact, I rarely come across any issues in zc lately. If people didn't report them, I might not even believe that they existed. Freedom, you might of just had some bad luck where 1121 didn't like you very much. I *think* all those problems have been since fixed and it at least shouldn't crash anymore. If it does you just have to post it and then the shit cabbie makes another detour. It's not perfect but it's the best that there is right now.

Something else: I don't know when it will be at a 'release candidate' stage. I 'hope' it will come soon. As long as any part of the main engine gets changed there is a chance that bugs will emerge from it's dark depths and development time will lag even more, thus entering into a seemingly endless tunnel in which the path to daylight becomes a slow and torturous crawl. I believe we are above this though, and while sometimes to fix a bug it is easier to just add feature X to take care of it, I think everyone (I hope) is in the mindset of gearing for release by now. Another problem with lag time is just plain and simple arm strength.[Insert 'Tim Allen slogan' here]

..I don't even know where I'm going with this anymore. :\ To sum up and rant about the whole adding features thing at the same time...
I'm all for 2.5 being finished sooner rather than later for two reasons:

1) Personal selfish reason 1: I don't like fixing other peoples bugs. I have no idea what dev X during year Y was thinking when he/she implemented function Z then another dev W added additional feature Q to it that caused bug 403-1b. It takes me like 10 times longer to fix than if I did something that caused it. Nevertheless, in the long run it all adds up and a stable version will come sooner, so I endure.
Personal selfish reason 2: I'd like to add lots of new cool stuff and develop the functionality further. I can't do this until a release happens, therefore it is in my personal interest to try and see 2.5 come out without being delayed [insert some form of witty time frame comment here].

2) Then half of you get to say "I told you so" and all of you get to answer an onslaught of dumb questions from a bunch of new newbies. Theys be crazy gud wit fonics lol..

That's my $.02.

tl;dr version: I don't know. Yes. No. It's not that buggy. Try the latest build. That's what she said. That's silly; there's very little scripting bugs by comparison. That's what she said.

edit:

And perhaps the worst tidbit is that there has been no dev commentary in this thread. Please, let's just have a concentrated effort to clean up 2.5. I'm finishing up my quest, so I'll be able to help beta test like no other.
Oh god please no more lens of truth bugs! :p

Nicholas Steel

01-21-2010, 10:53 AM

Something else: I don't know when it will be at a 'release candidate' stage. I 'hope' it will come soon. As long as any part of the main engine gets changed there is a chance that bugs will emerge from it's dark depths and development time will lag even more, thus entering into a seemingly endless tunnel in which the path to daylight becomes a slow and torturous crawl. I believe we are above this though, and while sometimes to fix a bug it is easier to just add feature X to take care of it, I think everyone (I hope) is in the mindset of gearing for release by now. Another problem with lag time is just plain and simple arm strength.[Insert 'Tim Allen slogan' here]

Scripting is a constantly evolving feature set, it has taken 4 to 5 years to turn an incomplete feature set into a incomplete feature set, pretty much making every single other feature "buggy" multiple times along the way. There is no end to this evolving feature set as far as I, likely Freedom, ST, DFW etc. can see.

I like that at some point the builds got much more stable on newer O/S's, but still had very buggy features and stuff making it pointless to develop quests or experiment with it.

jman2050

01-22-2010, 05:06 PM

Freedom

01-22-2010, 06:37 PM

I don't know what your personal threshold for 'bugginess' is, but anyone expecting everything to work exactly as intended all of the time has never actually programmed before. Especially for a program of this nature.

Haven't we had this thread dozens of times before already?

well... yea, it's been 6 years since a stable release.
As for the rest... the developers decide the threshold and when to release a version as "stable", as for everyone else they seem to agree that 6 years is just a bit too long to wait.

As for some people pointing out the 210 fiasco... and using that as reason to not release, hell there were only what... 4 serious bugs, why didn't ya'll just fix those and do a re-release and call it good?
And you all (developers) said you wanted to do a rewrite, so why are you investing so mych time in this one, release one, start your rewrite, and continue to tweak serious bugs in this until it is as stable as it can be, doesn't that make more sense?

jman2050

01-22-2010, 06:45 PM

See, I knew when I made that edit that I'd be too late with it!

well... yea, it's been 6 years since a stable release.
As for the rest... the developers decide the threshold and when to release a version as "stable", as for everyone else they seem to agree that 6 years is just a bit too long to wait.

Indeed. And I've definitely made my share of mistakes. What's amazing about this is that I'm still only 23 and have quite a bit to learn about organizing a project of this nature. I came on when I was fresh out of high school and was basically playing by ear the whole time. As to be expected, many things didn't go quite as planned. Nevertheless, this whole ordeal is still mostly my fault, and I don't want people nagging on the efforts of people like _L_ and Joe and Gleeok because of my mistakes. That's the last thing I want here.

As for some people pointing out the 210 fiasco... and using that as reason to not release, hell there were only what... 4 serious bugs, why didn't ya'll just fix those and do a re-release and call it good?

Didn't DN do exactly that ages ago? :P

And you all (developers) said you wanted to do a rewrite, so why are you investing so mych time in this one, release one, start your rewrite, and continue to tweak serious bugs in this until it is as stable as it can be, doesn't that make more sense?

It's sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I've been wanting to do this for a while now but there's always been hesitation because of how incomplete the current build is. If I recall we even made that option public to people, and based on the responses decided in favor of fixing up the current code base before doing anything else. Perhaps that ended up being a mistake.

Well then, screw it, I would be more than willing to start on a rewrite, but only if people would absolutely be satisfied with a new version of ZC that's missing 90% of its intended functionality but without random crashes and quest corruption bugs. I'd have to convince myself to do things that way.

Freedom

01-22-2010, 07:24 PM

See, I knew when I made that edit that I'd be too late with it!

Indeed. And I've definitely made my share of mistakes. What's amazing about this is that I'm still only 23 and have quite a bit to learn about organizing a project of this nature. I came on when I was fresh out of high school and was basically playing by ear the whole time. As to be expected, many things didn't go quite as planned. Nevertheless, this whole ordeal is still mostly my fault, and I don't want people nagging on the efforts of people like _L_ and Joe and Gleeok because of my mistakes. That's the last thing I want here.

Didn't DN do exactly that ages ago? :P

It's sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I've been wanting to do this for a while now but there's always been hesitation because of how incomplete the current build is. If I recall we even made that option public to people, and based on the responses decided in favor of fixing up the current code base before doing anything else. Perhaps that ended up being a mistake.

Well then, screw it, I would be more than willing to start on a rewrite, but only if people would absolutely be satisfied with a new version of ZC that's missing 90% of its intended functionality but without random crashes and quest corruption bugs. I'd have to convince myself to do things that way.

quoting on just the bold underlined here....
doesn't it have 90% more than it did when we were close to releasing the 211b10b?

People will never be satisfied that it has enough, but if you can't really build and release quests with what it does have, doesn't really matter what they want anyway.
IF they want MORE let them continue with the betas and do the testing

Gleeok

01-22-2010, 10:19 PM

rewrite

I'm not sure a rewrite would do anything in terms of making a better Z1 clone. zc can do pretty much almost anything you'd want a LOZ1 editor to do and way more. Plus imagine trying to get the rewrite compliant with all the backwards compatibility issues of the older quests and releases. Patching up the remaining bugs would take far less time.

"Rewrite" to me sort of implies not even making a clone of Z1, but something that 'can' make a clone of Z1. (edit:) I meant this in a optimistic way. To me there's no point in writing a book then rewriting the same book so that it can contain the same words. You have to make it better and not limit features based on quirky nes coding.

Nicholas Steel

01-23-2010, 11:14 AM

I'm not sure a rewrite would do anything in terms of making a better Z1 clone. zc can do pretty much almost anything you'd want a LOZ1 editor to do and way more. Plus imagine trying to get the rewrite compliant with all the backwards compatibility issues of the older quests and releases. Patching up the remaining bugs would take far less time.There are very few quests designed for the ZC beta's, you won't be affecting much by removing backwards support as there is already 2.10 for 2.10 quests, 1.92b183/4 and 1.90 etc. for there quests.

If anything, stability under modern O/S's is where the problem lies for legacy quests but for 1.90 there is always DOSBox.

"Rewrite" to me sort of implies not even making a clone of Z1, but something that 'can' make a clone of Z1. (edit:) I meant this in a optimistic way. To me there's no point in writing a book then rewriting the same book so that it can contain the same words. You have to make it better and not limit features based on quirky nes coding.
Thats the plan.

Shoelace

01-23-2010, 07:59 PM

Well then, screw it, I would be more than willing to start on a rewrite, but only if people would absolutely be satisfied with a new version of ZC that's missing 90% of its intended functionality but without random crashes and quest corruption bugs. I'd have to convince myself to do things that way.

I'd be satisfied. But here is my 2 cents about it:

We really just want a release, that is stable as possible. There has been a lot of things added since 2.5. Some of course, still hasn't been added yet. So why don't we do what you are saying, make a new version of ZC with some of its intended functionality not working, but do get rid of the crashes and big bugs. Release that, and then finish the 10% functionality for another release. Because we all know that 100% intended functionality isn't coming for a long time. So why not split them up into 2 releases? It is just it has been 6, 7 years between a release. I don't think people would be mad about 2 releases as 1.92 183, 184, and 2.10 were pretty close to each other.

I just want there to be a good release so we can start uploading games like on PureZC, get some fresh games on there. I will help test it out to make sure the bugs are minimal if that is what we are aiming for. It is just, at this point, when I know things are still going to get added, it is hard to bug test for a stable release when additions are changing things. that's just me though.

rocksfan13

01-23-2010, 10:08 PM

I second what Shoelace implies.

He's right. People are looking for stability. Let them have it and take it from there. I can't imagine that it was this bad during the 193, 183, 182 era. Before 2.10.
By taking an insane amount of time to send one out, you risk losing the fanbase and spark new interest.

Freedom

01-24-2010, 12:02 AM

Nicholas Steel

01-24-2010, 01:11 AM

There are very few quests designed for the ZC beta's, you won't be affecting much by removing backwards support as there is already 2.10 for 2.10 quests, 1.92b183/4 and 1.90 etc. for there quests.

If anything, stability under modern O/S's is where the problem lies for legacy quests but for 1.90 there is always DOSBox.
Bah thats what I get for posting late at night. I mean you could have 2 programs, one aimed at running/making legacy quests and the other aimed at whatever the hell you want. Both independent from each other.

edit: anyways that likely wont happen at all or any time soon so for now, I 4th Shoelace's idea.

edit: What I meant was to develop a program that aims to play quests from 2.10, 1.92 beta 184, 1.92 beta 183 and 1.90 reliably using the latest version of Allegro or whatever. The editor would have presets (like we have rule sets now) where you choose what version your quest is to be made for and the appropriate restrictions will be made, the outputted QST file will be 100% compatible with the original player as well as the new unified player.

The Editor can sport new things like Dungeon Carving and the large interface etc. and also fix the stuck midi note bug for 2.10 quests without destroying quest compatibility.

Then once that is done, develop a separate project aimed at being a generic game maker with scripting and other advanced features etc. and no compatibility with old quest files.

Christian

01-24-2010, 02:39 AM

I 5th Shoelace's idea also. We don't care about features that are waiting to be added. All we want is a fresh stable release. My quest is temporarily on hold because i just became a bit lazy at keeping up with the changes, updating every beta, and rewrite certain scripts that broke due to certain changes in ZScript. Right now, 2.5 has features that are great and doesn't need any improvement for now. I'll gladly help beta test the program also as long as we know that we aren't doing it in vain. I'd say finish whatever's going to be added at the moment, release the builds, and us testers will give out reports on any bugs we encounter to smash most of the bugs in 2.5.

Just my 2 cents on it.

Nimono

01-24-2010, 02:02 PM

Here's my opinions on the matter:

-I'm still a bit sick of the bickering about the lack of a stable release, but I can understand where you all are coming from. I'm pretty sure the devs have a good reason for moving slowly, though...well, most of them.
-I'm getting sick of all this "YOU report the bugs, THEN we fix them". Aren't the devs suppose to look for the bugs THEMSELVES before releasing? I know these are all just builds, not big releases, but it still makes no sense to me at all. I would NEVER release something to people that had a glaring bug in it without trying to find if it's even in there, or even FIXING it. It does not. make. sense!
-Enough with the new ZScript commands! Don't we have everything we could possibly need in it RIGHT NOW?
-Finish up just the things that are unfinished, and add just one final thing: Sideview ladders. Oh yeah, sure, we have a script for it, but think of it this way: Does it really make sense to force us to script what should LOGICALLY already be built-in? Sideview isn't exactly good enough for the most part because it has no built-in ladders to climb up and stand on. (That's one problem I have with the script- you can't climb on top of the ladder and stand on it.) Doesn't that, then, make sideview incomplete? Just my opinion on it. (Besides, how hard could it be to add that kind of combo in?)

So yeah. I haven't given up ZC yet, but I'm going to have to agree that this has gone on long enough. We've got just about everything we need, why add much more past that sideview ladder? (And I still refuse to accept that we HAVE to use the sideview ladder script. That's just being lazy on your part, devs.)

pkmnfrk

01-24-2010, 04:18 PM

-I'm getting sick of all this "YOU report the bugs, THEN we fix them". Aren't the devs suppose to look for the bugs THEMSELVES before releasing? I know these are all just builds, not big releases, but it still makes no sense to me at all. I would NEVER release something to people that had a glaring bug in it without trying to find if it's even in there, or even FIXING it. It does not. make. sense!

Let's play the Imagine If game! Imagine if the developers had to test every single feature in Zelda Classic before releasing a build, including the ones that shouldn't have been affected by whatever they were touching. Make a bugfix to Link's sprites? Got to check DMaps, dungeon doors, BS Sprites, Midi playing, Quest Templates, Old-style warp detection and combo cycling. Add a new enemy to the default template? Test Sidewarps, walkable water, sideview, palette cycling, raft branches, boss roars and dungeon maps.

Etc, etc.

It's not feasible to examine every aspect of the engine every time you do something. It would be like playing through your entire quest every time you fix a combo problem in Level 6. That would be madness! Fortunately, there's a lot more people using the program than developers, so the idea is that the masses, in their wild and varying use of the program, can test every aspect of it. If not every build, than every few builds.

THAT is how bugs are found.

jman2050

01-24-2010, 10:08 PM

More to the point, I am a terrible tester. At least 90% of the bugs on the forum are found performing activities that I never would think of trying out on my own. Furthermore, at least half the bugs I personally find are by accident.

Just because we're developers doesn't mean we're particularly good at bug testing.

Pineconn

01-24-2010, 10:45 PM

Gah.. let's not get into a role debate. The betas were publicly released for ZCers to test. Simple as that. The most important task at hand is the lack of direction or a goal in general, which needs to be addressed now.

Freedom

01-25-2010, 12:07 AM

with all of that in mind then I think you all understand how I got to feel testing, you'd find a bug, report it, it was fixed, then back again a few releases later

pkmnfrk

01-25-2010, 12:42 AM

with all of that in mind then I think you all understand how I got to feel testing, you'd find a bug, report it, it was fixed, then back again a few releases later

Then bitch repeatedly.

"Bug is STILL present in xyz."

Works for me :)

Freedom

01-25-2010, 12:56 AM

they weren't "still" present, they were reintroduced in version after version after.....

I don't want to be a professional bug tester, I want to finish my quest, and a stable version is the best route for me to do that.
Then if it has a few bugs, I'll figure them out, work around them, and GET ER DONE.
That's all I care about doing right now, I have a set amount of time I can invest in my quest and I don't want that time going into countless releases that aren't intended to be considered as stable, been there done that, wasted 2 years, WON'T do that again.

As things stand right now, I'm working on my quest again, in the 1099, and I will finish it in the 1099 and release it in the 1099 unless a version is released that is considered to be a stable release, like 210 or 183 were.
If a release hasn't come by the time this quest is done, I'll know not to bother ever starting another.
This one has set in my computer far too long, and since it has about 2 years work in it then it really needs finished and released, but I won't go through this again with another one, with corruptions, and repairing and rebuilding and waiting....

Nicholas Steel

01-25-2010, 01:04 AM

Yes the best way to find bugs is to build quests using the beta's however there is no secure backup system implemented (something I suggested back a bit), so it is very easy to lose the entire project due to corruption etc.

Once the final build is ready, release a Release Candidate with the secure backup system changed or removed if you want and further test for regressions.

Gleeok

01-25-2010, 04:34 AM

I use an amazing program to keep backups of all my important files I wouldn't want to lose. It's called copy-paste. Or if you use a usb drive it's worth the upgrade that includes the Drag-n-drop mouse functionmahandler majigger.

There is auto-save and auto-backup options in zquest last time I checked.

Nicholas Steel

01-25-2010, 07:33 AM

Yes, but the program has some way to access previously made files else how does it manage to corrupt them all? I remember Freedom saying that all his backups for a quest were corrupted.

http://armageddongames.net/showthread.php?44852-almost-bug-free&p=430975&viewfull=1#post430975

Maybe theres a hard coded limit or something and it started overwriting old ones at some point? kinda silly approach for beta testing builds.

Freedom

01-25-2010, 02:17 PM

how that happened to me franpa is I manually do my backups
I have 3 folders in my zc folder called back1,2,
as I progress I I save copies and over write the back ups in order.
what got me was combo corruption that didn;t show up in an area I wasn't working in.
another time it was freeform combos moving from one version to another.

It has never been so bad that it couldn't be repaired, but at what price.....

at the moment I have 8 backups of my quest just in the folders that I'm working on, and more back ups elsewhere

The point is, strange things happen and you never notice it for God knows how long.
I just added a sfx sound last night and noticed at some point that it removed the names of the ones I had added previously.
I had to click on all the sfx numbers and find them again and rename them, then I had to go back to an old version and see if I had just overwritten one with the new one I added.

Nathaniel

01-26-2010, 11:41 PM

For those who don't visit PureZC, am I am administrator over there. I have lurked here for a while, and I finally thought to register and share my thoughts on this very long term issue.

Yes, it has been about 6 years since the last "stable" release, which has been frustrating for plenty, so you have to admit that people have waited longer than they should ever be asked to wait. I also understand that developing is hard work, despite me having zero expertise in programming.

I hear plenty of discussion of staying the long course on 2.5 vs. continuing with something brand new from scratch (I will arbitrarily call this 3.0 for simplicity throughout the rest of my post). Some say it is best to stick with what we have, and some say to start over with a new foundation, and some say to wait to start anew until 2.5 is done. But that could be a long ways away, as we all already know. My question is this: Why can't both be done simultaneously?

I can understand there being some sort of "comfort zone" with the developers. 100% understood. Sure, we are in it waist deep right now, so lets just stick to 2.5 right now. Thus starting another project at the same time could be a confusing distraction. What I propose is that there could be two separate independent development teams. One team to continue working on 2.5, and another to start working on 3.0. Those who wish to stick with 2.5 can continue to do so, and those who are motivated to start with a new 3.0 can choose to do that. With two teams, this could also be an opportunity to add some new developers who are ready and rearing to go, especially for the 3.0 project. I have been around to know that there are people only interested in either one or the other, so why can't we let both sides have their way? I guess you can call it the Marge Simpson response to the matter. It could in fact bring forth some sort of friendly competition. Since both are being worked on, we could eliminate the "woulda coulda shouldas" of not going a particular way. At this point, what do we have to lose? If a stable 2.5 happens to get finished first, then that is still good for a 3.0 development, because at that point, while 2.5 is finished (or is hypothetically finished, by some good arguments), instead of starting 3.0 from the beginning, its development will have already gotten underway.

As long as there is a willingness to let both developments happen, there is a way to work on both at the same time. It is ultimately up to the more active developers in deciding if both developments can happen here. If not, then a 3.0 development could still end up happening elsewhere, either in another already existing ZC community or a brand new one. It would just have to take at least one developer to have the drive and motivation to start a 3.0 project and hire people to that team. I am not sure if a similar suggestion has ever been proposed, but I thought I would at least bring that sort of brainstorming to the table. It's better than just sitting here and recycling the same points everybody is making over and over again. Great minds talk about ideas before they ever talk about events or people. I figure that if both such developments could be worked on, with no one developer working on both, then there is at least a slightly better chance of something desirable getting done. And hey, a little competition just might be what the future of ZC needs. Economically, it works for capitalism, provided there isn't a monopoly. How could it all be organized? I am sure that could be worked out. Now that I got that across, I figure the least I could do is now listen to other people.

Nimono

01-27-2010, 12:45 AM

I hear plenty of discussion of staying the long course on 2.5 vs. continuing with something brand new from scratch (I will arbitrarily call this 3.0 for simplicity throughout the rest of my post). Some say it is best to stick with what we have, and some say to start over with a new foundation, and some say to wait to start anew until 2.5 is done. But that could be a long ways away, as we all already know. My question is this: Why can't both be done simultaneously?

I can understand there being some sort of "comfort zone" with the developers. 100% understood. Sure, we are in it waist deep right now, so lets just stick to 2.5 right now. Thus starting another project at the same time could be a confusing distraction. What I propose is that there could be two separate independent development teams. One team to continue working on 2.5, and another to start working on 3.0. Those who wish to stick with 2.5 can continue to do so, and those who are motivated to start with a new 3.0 can choose to do that. With two teams, this could also be an opportunity to add some new developers who are ready and rearing to go, especially for the 3.0 project. I have been around to know that there are people only interested in either one or the other, so why can't we let both sides have their way? I guess you can call it the Marge Simpson response to the matter. It could in fact bring forth some sort of friendly competition. Since both are being worked on, we could eliminate the "woulda coulda shouldas" of not going a particular way. At this point, what do we have to lose? If a stable 2.5 happens to get finished first, then that is still good for a 3.0 development, because at that point, while 2.5 is finished (or is hypothetically finished, by some good arguments), instead of starting 3.0 from the beginning, its development will have already gotten underway.

You know, I actually think this is a GREAT idea, Nathaniel! My only worry would be the size of the dev team as a whole, though. Once 2.5 were to be completed, what would happen to the dev teams? Logically, they would be combined, right? But wouldn't that make the team too big? I'd hate for 2.5 to be finished, the teams combined to work on 3.0, and some people on the combined team be kicked off just because it would be too big...but at the same time, I can't say for certain that this could actually be an issue. :/ Either way, I really agree with this idea, and if the devs were to take you up on this, I'd trust them to find a way to make it all work so no one would have to be needlessly thrown off. Support++;.

Nathaniel

01-27-2010, 12:50 AM

Well, if that happened Matthew, that would in fact be a good problem to have, considering that at least something up to that point got done, thus at least the members are happy. The "too many developers" phenomenon would be something to worry about when that corner finally gets neared. You don't need to end up with twice as many developers as before. If the average developer was more motivated due to such planning, then in theory you might only need a few more. Who you need more of where all depends on who is willing to do what in the first place. Only hire more if you feel at any moment in the development that there is a demand for somebody else to join the team.

Freedom

01-27-2010, 01:19 AM

Sounds like a good way to get TWO incomplete projects to me.
I think they all should focus on getting this one stabilized and released yesterday.
STOP making additions to the scripting, and fix bugs period.

Anthus

01-27-2010, 02:13 AM

I'm pretty tired, so this post might be somewhat incoherent.

Here's my opinions on the matter:
-I'm still a bit sick of the bickering about the lack of a stable release, but I can understand where you all are coming from. I'm pretty sure the devs have a good reason for moving slowly, though...well, most of them.
-I'm getting sick of all this "YOU report the bugs, THEN we fix them". Aren't the devs suppose to look for the bugs THEMSELVES before releasing? I know these are all just builds, not big releases, but it still makes no sense to me at all. I would NEVER release something to people that had a glaring bug in it without trying to find if it's even in there, or even FIXING it. It does not. make. sense!
-Enough with the new ZScript commands! Don't we have everything we could possibly need in it RIGHT NOW?
-Finish up just the things that are unfinished, and add just one final thing: Sideview ladders. Oh yeah, sure, we have a script for it, but think of it this way: Does it really make sense to force us to script what should LOGICALLY already be built-in? Sideview isn't exactly good enough for the most part because it has no built-in ladders to climb up and stand on. (That's one problem I have with the script- you can't climb on top of the ladder and stand on it.) Doesn't that, then, make sideview incomplete? Just my opinion on it. (Besides, how hard could it be to add that kind of combo in?)

So yeah. I haven't given up ZC yet, but I'm going to have to agree that this has gone on long enough. We've got just about everything we need, why add much more past that sideview ladder? (And I still refuse to accept that we HAVE to use the sideview ladder script. That's just being lazy on your part, devs.)

Yes. I agree about the ladders. Everything else too, kinda. Oh, but yeah, as someone else says, the Devs do kind of get to say "You find it, we fix it". After all these are beta builds. Not concrete for sure versions.

...
It's sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I've been wanting to do this for a while now but there's always been hesitation because of how incomplete the current build is. If I recall we even made that option public to people, and based on the responses decided in favor of fixing up the current code base before doing anything else. Perhaps that ended up being a mistake.

Well then, screw it, I would be more than willing to start on a rewrite, but only if people would absolutely be satisfied with a new version of ZC that's missing 90% of its intended functionality but without random crashes and quest corruption bugs. I'd have to convince myself to do things that way.

I would take a standardized version, that can have official releases even if it was at the expense of some features. Isn't this what using 2.10.2 is now? If something never has a real release then EVEYONE's work is for nothing. Designers, testers, builders... If it were my call, I'd say tie up some loose ends, but no more new features, unless they technically classify as finishing something (Ladders in 2D rooms). A feature freeze. However, I will say designers who rely on builds for an actual serious quest making can't say much if it gets busted. Why? You are voluntarily using a beta, with a disclaimer. It is buggy. It is meant for testing to make it less buggy. But, this will not happen at this rate, with this project. We need a feature freeze, and people can just work with what they have.

...Drag-n-drop mouse functionmahandler majigger.

I use this amazing program too. I do not use the system's back ups though. I like doing it myself. Plus auto saves may or may not help you. Say you do something game breaking, then you go to test it. Oh, but guess what, auto save'd right before you closed, or realized the error, quest fucked.

On the topic of starting from scratch afterwards, and backward compatibility:

A new engine should not be any type of "clone". I'd ideally like to see a feature set more akin to AlttP, and the Gameboy games. Forget about "NES consistency". Why bother? ZC's GUI is fine. Especially with the way you can make multi layer combo macros now (like a tree). Forget awkward palette limits. Have one of them fancy huge global palettes. People can rip tiles, and essentially it'd be one 32,000 color palette. No recoloring necessary.

Backward compatibility. No. A new version should have nothing to do with the old ZC. Let players use the build the quests were meant to be played on (talking pre-2.5 here). If we ever get a stable 2.5, then sure, have those quests playable. "3.0" should have nothing to do with the old ZC.

Anyway, I'm tired. goodnight.

Gleeok

01-27-2010, 02:56 AM

Well not every dev can work on the program at once. First, you have to want to work on the program, and secondly, you have to actually have time to work on it. Also there is the fact that learning the code to be able to fix bugs is a very time consuming process as well. I'm sure that during 2.10 development this was not so much an issue as it is now, as 2.5 is fairly bloated with lots of goodies all based off of code that was never designed for that aspect, hence the long development time. (Where is that 'pick two' programming chart? -That sums it up pretty well for a graphic.)
Right now we're offering our free time to try and fix these issues which is not always fun or easy. Bitching about how there were fuck ups years ago does not help us right now. Complaining about how the scripting engine took so much time is not going to help us right now.
What will help us right now is limiting the amount of time we spend investigating bogus bugs or bugs we can't reproduce or etc etc by specifying build, program, fullscreen?, large mode?, can be seen with a blank quest or default template? etc., or even just help clean up the bug forum (http://armageddongames.net/showthread.php?44589-Help-sort-the-bug-forum) so we can get a better view of where we stand right now.

Thus starting another project at the same time could be a confusing distraction. What I propose is that there could be two separate independent development teams. One team to continue working on 2.5, and another to start working on 3.0. Those who wish to stick with 2.5 can continue to do so, and those who are motivated to start with a new 3.0 can choose to do that. With two teams, this could also be an opportunity to add some new developers who are ready and rearing to go, especially for the 3.0 project. I have been around to know that there are people only interested in either one or the other, so why can't we let both sides have their way?

I can pretty much guarantee that if this happens a few things are going down:
-It will probably not use allegro. (I vote openGL with 'some other lib'.)
-It will in fact be a 32-bit color, 3D, Q-Bert clone!

pkmnfrk

01-27-2010, 09:07 AM

Gleeok, that triangle was mine, but I can't find it right at this second. But, it went:

1. Features
2. Stability
3. Quick Release

Pick two.

Ladder: I spent a few hours the other day, trying to create a ladder combo. It was like pulling teeth. I got something that suspended gravity, but only as long as yoiu didn't jump on and then off it in one jump, which caused you to float.

I'm still not sure the best way to do this, yet...

New project: I don't think anyone understands the magnitude of difficulty in creating a brand new engine, especially one with LttP's features.

Don't get me wrong. As I said before, I'm down for it, and I have a good idea as to how to do stuff in a new project. But, I doubt we'd be looking at a release before 2013, even if we started this instant.

The new engine will not be backwards compatible with ZC. At all, in the slightest. Maybe, we could support tile and map importing, but that's it. I envision the new engine being very open, and where most interactible stuff in the game world is scripted (along with a large catalogue of pre-written scripts for things like push-blocks).

I see it as where rooms are not defined as chunks of "maps", but are arbitrarily sized maps in and of themselves, and are stitched together to create truely freeform dungeons.

Everything you know about how ZC works, drop it, it doesn't apply any more.

I see it as being an entirely new beast, working on which does absolutely nothing for the scads of quest designers working with ZC, so there's no point worrying about it now.

Nicholas Steel

01-27-2010, 12:50 PM

I agree with Freedom, get 2.5 finished before doing anything about a new program.

I can pretty much guarantee that if this happens a few things are going down:
-It will probably not use allegro. (I vote openGL with 'some other lib'.)
-It will in fact be a 32-bit color, 3D, Q-Bert clone!
Do you mean 3D engine with 2D environments? or 3D environments? because we get enough 3D games from Nintendo as is.

Gleeok

01-27-2010, 12:53 PM

Do you mean 3D engine with 2D environments? or 3D environments? because we get enough 3D games from Nintendo as is.

Neither. It will be a 2D engine rendering 3D environments. :p

edit: Plus..when I said 32-bit color, I mean you only get 32 bits worth of color. So you have to get creative with different ways of upacking it. That's hours of fun right there! :D

pkmnfrk

01-27-2010, 02:12 PM

Neither. It will be a 2D engine rendering 3D environments. :p

edit: Plus..when I said 32-bit color, I mean you only get 32 bits worth of color. So you have to get creative with different ways of upacking it. That's hours of fun right there! :D

I wholly endorse this idea! C'mon, Gleeok, let's get started!

Nimono

01-27-2010, 06:13 PM

I see it as being an entirely new beast, working on which does absolutely nothing for the scads of quest designers working with ZC, so there's no point worrying about it now.

I don't quite understand why you think it's such a bad idea. Could you please explain? I honestly think this is the time to worry about it, since if it was done, 3.0 would already be in progress when 2.5 is finished, and if it's started NOW, it might even be far along. I could understand the worry of them both taking even longer to finish due to people having to split their time between the two versions, but Nathaniel's idea specifically said there'd be TWO dev teams, one for 2.5, one for 3.0. So what if it takes years? Most good things take a while to make, few exceptions. The sooner it's started, the sooner it can get done, right? The harder the team works, the faster it can get done! I just don't really see how this could be THAT bad of an idea...

pkmnfrk

01-27-2010, 06:29 PM

I don't quite understand why you think it's such a bad idea. Could you please explain? I honestly think this is the time to worry about it, since if it was done, 3.0 would already be in progress when 2.5 is finished, and if it's started NOW, it might even be far along. I could understand the worry of them both taking even longer to finish due to people having to split their time between the two versions, but Nathaniel's idea specifically said there'd be TWO dev teams, one for 2.5, one for 3.0. So what if it takes years? Most good things take a while to make, few exceptions. The sooner it's started, the sooner it can get done, right? The harder the team works, the faster it can get done! I just don't really see how this could be THAT bad of an idea...

Well, basically, what I'm saying is that it won't be ZC 3.0. I'm saying that it will be Zelda Advanced 1.0 (Name Pending).

That is, if we're doing it properly and having all the other stuff I mentioned. If not, and it really will be ZC 3.0, then having two teams would be utterly retarded, because we'd be working from the same codebase!

Freedom

01-27-2010, 08:01 PM

I don't quite understand why you think it's such a bad idea. Could you please explain? I honestly think this is the time to worry about it, since if it was done, 3.0 would already be in progress when 2.5 is finished, and if it's started NOW, it might even be far along. I could understand the worry of them both taking even longer to finish due to people having to split their time between the two versions, but Nathaniel's idea specifically said there'd be TWO dev teams, one for 2.5, one for 3.0. So what if it takes years? Most good things take a while to make, few exceptions. The sooner it's started, the sooner it can get done, right? The harder the team works, the faster it can get done! I just don't really see how this could be THAT bad of an idea...

already been 6 years waiting for a stable release, and where you going to get all the people for these "teams", pull then out of yer azz?
I think it's a really bad idea.

Nicholas Steel

01-27-2010, 08:55 PM

The problem I see, with 2 teams, is that by the time one of the teams finishes, the other project might be so far along that it is nearly impossible to get familiar with.

Nimono

01-27-2010, 09:35 PM

The problem I see, with 2 teams, is that by the time one of the teams finishes, the other project might be so far along that it is nearly impossible to get familiar with.

Oh wow. That's actually a really nice point, I wasn't thinking about THAT. o_O You're right, that WOULD be a huge issue if they had two teams. Of course, Freedom also has a good point...who would they hire? Of course, who says the people HAVE to be from around here? Maybe I should compile a list of pros and cons to Nathaniel's idea and see if I could come up with a way to get around those issues. That might be good.

pkmnfrk

01-27-2010, 11:33 PM

Well, this thread has already put some ideas in to my head about this potential new engine that is not related to ZC in any way except in spirit, so...

Maybe someone should lay down a bit of foundation first, before a team of the world's best coders goes to town on it. I mean, imagine a situation where twelve carpenters all try to lay down the first brick (or, whatever it is that carpenters do!)

Freedom

01-28-2010, 12:28 AM

Mason's lay brick, carpenters drink beer and fart a lot ;O)
If all these programmers are sitting around waiting to be called for that project..... why don't they just jump in and finish the one at hand in the mean time ;O)
I've always found it's better to be concerned about what is, not what if.

pkmnfrk

01-28-2010, 12:33 AM

If all these programmers are sitting around waiting to be called for that project..... why don't they just jump in and finish the one at hand in the mean time ;O)
I've always found it's better to be concerned about what is, not what if.

That is more or less what I was trying to say, several posts ago. And, you did it without getting sidetracked on what if! Truely, you are a better public speaker than I.

Anyway, I am committed to seeing a stable release... very soon. Before the end of the year, to celebrate the (real) end of the decade!

I have no way of ensuring I meet that goal, but I can only hope that the other guys are with me on this!

Gleeok

01-28-2010, 08:40 AM

The problem I see, with 2 teams, is that by the time one of the teams finishes, the other project might be so far along that it is nearly impossible to get familiar with.

I call dibs on team name: "Ninja Assassins Mega Battery and Lycanthrope Ass-kicking team!!" ..or team NAMBLA for short.

Well, this thread has already put some ideas in to my head about this potential new engine that is not related to ZC in any way except in spirit, so...

Maybe someone should lay down a bit of foundation first, before a team of the world's best coders goes to town on it. I mean, imagine a situation where twelve carpenters all try to lay down the first brick (or, whatever it is that carpenters do!)

Dude you totally read my mind. :) That's why I started on this last week already!

int main()
{
//code goes here
return 0;
}

Go team NAMBLA!

(I rated this thread 5 stars) ;o edit: ok, I guess not. ..what the heck happened to the rating options... D:
..I know they're there because someones been rating the bug threads!.haha.

pkmnfrk

01-28-2010, 09:06 AM

I call dibs on team name: "Ninja Assassins Mega Battery and Lycanthrope Ass-kicking team!!" ..or team NAMBLA for short.

Dude you totally read my mind. :) That's why I started on this last week already!

int main()
{
//code goes here
return 0;
}

Go team NAMBLA!

(I rated this thread 5 stars) ;o edit: ok, I guess not. ..what the heck happened to the rating options... D:
..I know they're there because someones been rating the bug threads!.haha.

Hey! We have standards around here:

#include <stdlib.h>

int main() {
if(0 == rand() % 100) {
int i = 0; //introduce difficult to reproduce bug
return 1 / i; //bypass compiler warning
}
return 0;
}

ShadowTiger

01-28-2010, 09:50 AM

Mason's lay brick, carpenters drink beer and fart a lot ;O)Very off topic, but I work in a hardware store, (Epic Level Keycutter. Trust me with yo keez, dawgz.) and I have seen more Masons buying bricks and Carpenters farting in the store than the other way around. I keep a paper fan in the hardware desk now.

If all these programmers are sitting around waiting to be called for that project..... why don't they just jump in and finish the one at hand in the mean time ;O)Sounds about right. :D
I've always found it's better to be concerned about what is, not what if.Yep, that's the vibe I'm getting from this one. As appealing as a separate project is, you can't deny that it'll take FOREVER, because it'll split the Dev team in half, if not more. Then you have Dev migration, and some people knowing more about one project than the other, and Devs confusing code tidbits for one project for the other, ... bleh. We're already far enough in this one project. Even if the second project is coded more diligently, it'll still take a long time, because it's got nothing on it now. Not that I know anything about coding, but I can certainly imagine how tens of thousands of lines of fresh, clean code, are equitable to a tenth that amount of newly inserted bugfix code.

EDIT: If we were to make a webcomic out of this, I would call it "Return 0" :p

Gleeok

01-28-2010, 11:17 AM

I do prefer making jokes but just to clarify:

There is no multiple dev teams. Getting 2.5 done is still #1 on the TODO list. No one is going to abandon ZC before getting something out the door (Unless real life dictates otherwise). ZC devs work on ZC.

While were on the subject though, truth be told that after 2.5 I would probably like to work on a project less (how do I put this) ..melodramatic. :p

Well, this thread has already put some ideas in to my head about this potential new engine that is not related to ZC in any way except in spirit, so...

Maybe someone should lay down a bit of foundation first, before a team of the world's best coders goes to town on it. I mean, imagine a situation where twelve carpenters all try to lay down the first brick (or, whatever it is that carpenters do!)

I'd think that the scripting engine would be the first thing to go in. Then perhaps support a secondary scriping language, like Lua. Then you'd have scripts that compile to C++ code for speed, and scripts that could be changed at runtime for level/enemy/item layouts etc. Basically the same as professional game companies do it. Get rid of the crappy software rendering in favor of 3D acceleration and you've already got something 3x faster than GameMaker.

EDIT: If we were to make a webcomic out of this, I would call it "Return 0"
Haha. Here's another good one: Call it "END_OF_MAIN".

Nathaniel

01-28-2010, 01:53 PM

You guys do make some good points about the potential problems of there being a second team. I appreciate hearing all the responses. But hey, at least it got people thinking, right? I couldn't ask for more in regards to the responses. Better I speak my mind and people disagree with it than to not speak my mind to begin with and forever wonder. At least it could potentially spark some ideas come the day that 2.5 becomes stable, as useless as it would be right at this moment.

Moving right along then...

As for the progress on 2.5 specificially, I do agree that bug fixing needs to be not simply the #1 priority, but rather the "only" priority, assuming that is feasible. More neat stuff to add doesn't need to be done anymore, since we already have plenty of that; more than any reasonable and aware person would ever ask for. It is already migrating far from the original Legend of Zelda (that game being my motivation for discovering Zelda Classic back in 2004), despite the skyscraper being built on that house foundation.

jman2050

01-28-2010, 06:08 PM

That is more or less what I was trying to say, several posts ago. And, you did it without getting sidetracked on what if! Truely, you are a better public speaker than I.

As eminently frustrating and nagging as he can be, Freedom is still very respectful in his complaints and his demeanor seems to stem more from the unfortunate circumstances themselves as opposed to any ill will towards any person or persons in particular. It is rather annoying to people like him when I say I'll do one thing and don't follow through due to being distracted!

One thing I do think needs to be addressed that isn't related to 2.5 proper: some form of consistent documentation that won't require people to A) look at a tutorial or B) comb through old forum posts. I recall the ZCWiki was supposed to fill this need, but I imagine some sort of packaged documentation would be preferable for the final product. Fortunately, that's something that can be addressed by the community at large, developers included, over the next [insert random time period here]

Freedom

01-28-2010, 07:26 PM

nagging... ROFLOL
You better be extremely careful who you marry, you're liable to go absolutely insane.
I come in and bust yer balls what... about once every six months?
It's just who I am, a grumpy old biker bastard, who tells it like he sees it, regardless of ruffling a few feathers here and there.

You are correct, I have no I'll will towards anyone here, and think you developers do great work, and maybe I should say so more often, but the more pressing issue seems to be the fact that the project has been stalled without a release for so long, so that seems to take priority on what gets commented on the most.
the community is drying up.
It's like watching your favorite dog die.

jman2050

01-28-2010, 08:25 PM

Gleeok

01-29-2010, 12:56 AM

I would just like to say that right now there are less than 20, (including some but not all of the old threads which probably are already fixed) that's right, less than 20 bugs left! :)

Which brings up an old issue as well: So how good is good enough? Something of this nature will always have minor quirks to it. Where do we start drawing the line on what's a bug and what's just "not finished yet"? -As it will probably never be finished. It's never-ending. 2.5 will still be 'incomplete' 2 more years from now. Then 2.6...2.7...and so on.

Here's some food for thought: What IF (and I stress if) all new bug threads (non-critical bugs) came with a mandatory poll. :evil: Let the anxious bug testing users determine just how trivial some of the bugs are. Wouldn't THAT be a test of will? Do you want it released with all the current features stable and playable, or do you want it so every little issue that pops up (there will be lots) is looked at, or do you just want it now?

Nicholas Steel

01-29-2010, 04:43 AM

I believe, that poll idea is a good one. Also, we are likely waiting on a decision on whether or not you will focus only on bugs or not before we all get back to beta testing >.>

elise

01-31-2010, 03:46 PM

Yeah like the one we already had in 2007
Here (http://armageddongames.net/showthread.php?37228-Who-wants-a-stable-release&p=340854&viewfull=1#post340854) :uhoh:
That also didn't work out yet ..............did it ???
Its all been there done that talk over again .............and meanwhile the community is dieing

Freedom

01-31-2010, 04:04 PM

pkmnfrk

01-31-2010, 06:42 PM

I have to agree, it's 3:oo Sunday afternoon and the only other member here right now is DarkDragon.
the direction over the last few years has killed this project and forum.
better do CPR fast.
You developers have worked really hard for many years now, seems a shame to let it die a slow agonizing death now.

Actually, I'd contest that it's slow because it's a Sunday afternoon.

Anyway, last I checked, whining about the community doesn't have any magical properties to make a release happen sooner.

I assure you, we're working as fast as we can, and we're down to the bugs that are really obscure (in terms of fixing them).

Freedom

01-31-2010, 07:01 PM

I'm not whining, I'm stating a fact.
BUT... if you want to get in to name calling, mud slinging, and insults, we can do that, I think you'll find I'm real good at it, even though I prefer not to go that route.
And.... as for it not working.... well nothing else has worked either.

Nicholas Steel

02-01-2010, 12:36 PM

@ Elise

I believe he meant, have a poll presented for each bug report (presumably a forum mod would automate injection of poll's into newly created bug reports). We use these polls to determine the importance of each individual bug.

Dark Nation

02-01-2010, 03:37 PM

Okay, I'm adding polls to see how well the idea plays out. Even if a bug receives no "yes, fix it now" votes, we may still fix it if it's something that we immediately know the cause of and can fix quickly.

Freedom

02-01-2010, 08:17 PM

oh it gets REALLY scary when you start seeing ZC developers doing things like politicians.
nothing like a poll to see what people think about bugs.

Want a poll?
Do one for.... how many want to see an end to the additions in scripting that have bogged this project down for 4 years now, and just fix the bugs and release the puppy.
bet ya get some votes on that one.

edit....
you know how this is going to work....
everybody will want "their" bugs fixed and screw everybody else's

You guys know, or should know, what are critical and important bugs, don't you use it too?
The esc. tabs disappearing is minor, where the items moving around when you warp to no subscreen is pretty serious.

If I have to report bugs, and then also fill in a poll to see if it can get fixed, then I'm wasting my time.

Gleeok

02-01-2010, 09:42 PM

You're right Freedom, we know what is critical and what is not. And we're not going to let something critical slip by if it's fixable regardless of some stupid poll. The point I was trying to make was that it is virtually impossible to fix every little issue that pops up and that at some point some of those issues are going to have to be deferred until post 2.5 if we want a release sometime soon.

It could be an interesting experiment though, to get a better insight as to how the majority looks at some of these bugs if nothing else, albeit a short lived one.

edit: Actually they are kind of annoying as the poll graphic overrides the bug icons. <_<

Nicholas Steel

02-02-2010, 01:41 AM

If something can clearly be left until after 2.5 (there's a reasonable work around), the person making the report may say it is important, but whats the bet several others will vote against that one person? Likewise for seemingly critical reports.

Considering how there aren't many idiots (if any) on this forum these days, I doubt there would be too much of a problem (if any).

Freedom

02-02-2010, 03:40 AM

After working with it hard the last couple of weeks I don't believe it's anywhere near as stable as some would have you believe.
I've had all kinds of quirky behavior with it, from changing combo properties, to changing timed warps, crashing when viewing maps tab in dmaps, crashing with mp3 files that have worked in there for years, moving items in the subscreen, and a lot more.
I believe there hasn't been a stable release because they simply can't get it stable, or anywhere even near stable yet they continue to add more to it.

Like old Scottie said on star trek, the more pipes you add, the quicker you stop up the plumbing.

Nicholas Steel

02-02-2010, 05:42 AM

Did any of that happen after copying stuff from across multiple quest files etc.? (http://armageddongames.net/showthread.php?44961-copy-paste-across-quest-files-can-crash-zquest)

That sounds like zquest wasn't designed for that and was creating an unstable environment where any kinda data would be written to the QST file instead of what you wanted.

Freedom

02-02-2010, 06:23 AM

The way I did that franpa was I opened the robinhood quest, and then copied a screen, and then opened swansong which closed robinhood and then pasted and saved.
I don't believe it caused any problems.
The only thing I noticed after doing it was after closing zquest it would black my desktop out and it would come back in sections.
I've had zquest do that without opening additional quests too.
sort of like how a java page will effect your screen sometimes when moving on to something else.
I don't believe any of the problems I've had with 1099 have anything to do with that, and the only "new" problems I've really had since that are with the mp3's
I've been doing that since the 163 beta.

Nicholas Steel

02-02-2010, 07:49 AM

Next Build (Unreleased)

* Fixed a few potentially fatal bugs that might occur trying to copy, paste, or undo across multiple loaded quest files. This is no longer possible. That's what the export map function is for!From the sounds of it, under further investigation there were more problems then it looked like. So it very well could have been caused by it, heck anything could have after performing such an operation.

Dark Nation

02-02-2010, 09:36 AM

When you copy a screen, a copy of the screen isn't actually stored in memory, just a reference to that screen information. When a new quest is loaded, all screens are set to unused and then they are filled in and set to used as the quest is loaded. So, when you paste the screen, it's pulling data from memory that *should* have been cleared during the quest load but for some reason wasn't. It was just overwritten partially, it seems, possibly leading to corrupt/invalid data.

jman2050

02-02-2010, 03:31 PM

Wait, people were copy/pasting information between quest files?

I didn't even realize that was previously possible.

Freedom

02-02-2010, 03:57 PM

if you remember back when..... the import export options didn't work. well this was the standard work around
;O)

jman2050

02-02-2010, 04:01 PM

And now you see why I'm a terrible tester! :P

Gleeok

02-04-2010, 12:54 AM

Who knows what other tricks he's been doing this whole time without anyone knowing about. :o

..But what I would like to know is who the heck has been rating the bug threads. That's pretty funny. :googly:

Freedom

02-04-2010, 11:11 PM

well.... just lost about 30 hours worth of work to a header error.
I haven't seen this since the early betas, yet this one is supposed to be more stable huh?
I'm pretty disappointed to say the least.

Anthus

02-07-2010, 04:39 AM

One thing I do think needs to be addressed that isn't related to 2.5 proper: some form of consistent documentation that won't require people to A) look at a tutorial or B) comb through old forum posts. I recall the ZCWiki was supposed to fill this need, but I imagine some sort of packaged documentation would be preferable for the final product. Fortunately, that's something that can be addressed by the community at large, developers included, over the next [insert random time period here]

This would be awesome. I think the format of a Wiki is ideal for this.

nagging... ROFLOL
You better be extremely careful who you marry, you're liable to go absolutely insane.
I come in and bust yer balls what... about once every six months?
It's just who I am, a grumpy old biker bastard, who tells it like he sees it, regardless of ruffling a few feathers here and there.

Like j-man already said, it does sound unfortunate that you seem to always get the short end of the stick, and suffer such huge set backs. Sorry to hear about the 30 hours lost.

So.. Maybe some action should be taken. We still have heard nothing of what the devs intend on doing other than "making it bug free". This is nice, but where is the stopping point? What can be categorized as an "acceptable bug" and more importantly, when will features stop being added? I have been paying some attention to the updates more recently, and it looks like nothing but bug fixes. In fact, I have not seen anything truly new in quite some time. I was just wondering about an official status here.

Is there some sort of check list you devs use or do you just play it by ear?

Freedom

02-07-2010, 06:12 AM

I was fortunate and got my 30 hours back

The most important thing I see right now is that people get in and test it for bugs, the devs can't fix bugs they are unaware of and trust me, there are some sneaky ones in there.

Petoe

02-14-2010, 04:09 PM

I think it's officially time to say goodbye to Zelda Classic. It has died. There's no saving it anymore unless someone goes back to... let's say ZC 2.10 or the Lost Isle build and starts working with that when it wasn't a big damn mess yet.

So why waste time with Zelda Classic anymore? Almost everyone has finally realized it is time gone to waste. The developing team is a mess and no one seems to know what they're doing. I'm sure there are enough people around here with good programming skills, why not try to rewrite the engine, or start from scratch? It's time to make a new Zelda Classic. No matter how many years it would take to get that new Zelda Maker out, I would support it and bugtest it like crazy. Game making is my passion and I want ZC back the way it was: Good and relatively bugfree!

Yeah I know, I suck too. I may be good at designing games but I have no programming skills so I depend on others to make the tools for me. Zelda Classic was that perfect tool, a dream come true, and it was ruined by the incompetence of the new developers. The organizing of this project went to hell many years ago and Freedom and I tried to talk some sense to the developers, but they never listened. Now here we are, after 5 years and almost no progress for the better has happened. So sad. :(

I jut wonder what's so hard to understand about this simple yet effective concept:

1) Add a feature, test the hell out of it, release a "stable beta", test the hell out of it as well and then finally call it a stable, full release.

2) Repeat.

Now that I've spoken, go ahead and give me that negative rep, I don't care. I've probably deserved it for being so negative but that's how I am when I am very frustrated.

- Pete

Phazite

02-14-2010, 10:44 PM

New proposal (Similar to something in Peteo's post):

1. Start with ZC 2.10.2
2. Make it as stable as possible as well as its code as organized as possible. Make this near perfect version official. Say 2.10.3

3. Impliment one feature from 2.11. The code is already written, so perhaps it only needs to be cleaned out and properly inserted into 2.10.3.
4. Bug testing.

5. After enough of the essential features have been implemented, release.
6. Repeat 3,4,5.

Reasoning:
The betas, just have an overwhelming amount of new features, and no stable release since 2.10. So rather than rewritting everything from scratch, 2.10 seems like the best chance for a starting point. It's very solid, and perhaps only needs to be cleaned out. Really, even a few basic features (I mean without all the scripting, enemy editor, etc.) I think could get me and others re-interested in ZC. Basic features like the multiple warps and new combos. The betas wont have been a complete waste if they are used as guidance for the features to be added to the stable ZC.

Main Idea:
Rewrite from 2.10, focusing on making the expansion of ZC clean, effective, and organized.

Freedom

02-14-2010, 11:42 PM

oh man.....
now people are calling for a re-release of 210...
What a depressing thought.

L, what do you have to say about that after being so quiet in the rest of this thread?

Gleeok

02-15-2010, 03:38 AM

You have GOT to be kidding me...

SpykStorm

02-15-2010, 03:51 PM

Too much work has been put into 2.5 to go back to 2.10. Plus, there's not much left that needs to be changed in the new builds besides fixing the bugs.

jman2050

02-16-2010, 03:04 PM

If anything this thread demonstrates why I respect Freedom's complaints and concerns when he states them while basically ignoring anything Petoe says.

Petoe

02-16-2010, 10:37 PM

If anything this thread demonstrates why I respect Freedom's complaints and concerns when he states them while basically ignoring anything Petoe says.

The truth hurts, eh?

But it doesn't matter, you developers have been ignoring me for the last 5 years and look where we are... I mean, you ZC developers are talented programmers, I aknowledge and repsect that. But as developers you have done an awful job. Now everybody makes mistakes but what about learning from them? Would that be too much to ask?

Freedom

02-17-2010, 01:10 AM

I understand first hand Petoe's anger and frustration over what's happen here.
When L first started adding so many features so quickly, and stated that there was no such thing as a bug free program, it didn't take a rocket scientist to see where it was headed.
I warned about it at the time, and today wish I had been proven wrong instead of right.

The additions that L and the rest of you developers have added have been a great improvement, but you forgot what the program was intended to be used for, and that's to build and release quests with.
Forgetting that has caused builders and players alike to seek new ways to occupy their spare time.

I've been back here for the last month because I tore my guts up carrying a heavy wooden army footlocker and was flat on my back, and TV sux.
If I could have been, I'd have been out working or riding my bike, but instead I decided to finish at least one of the quests I have shelved as a tribute to Elise, who is really the one that is responsible for the motivation that allowed me to release all the quests that I did since SwanSong.

Personally I don't believe a stable release is coming, but come or not, I'm going to release this last quest and be done with it.
I owe that to Elise, and to myself.

Anthus

02-18-2010, 02:23 AM

Shit's depressing :/

What I want to know is how serious are the devs about re-doing ZC from the ground up after a "stable" 2.5 comes around?

Pineconn

02-18-2010, 04:07 AM

<-Quotes->

"GET a stable version, THEN add more with the builds, DON'T just keep adding bloat to something that doesn't work already.
Has common sense just left the building, or what?" -Freedom

...I'm pretty sure that's been in your sig for at least two years...

And to be realistic, complaining will bring about no change. Test the latest builds for bugs, report them, and they shall be fixed in due time. We just need testers WILLING to comb for bugs and developers WILLING to sift through and debug code.

Nicholas Steel

02-18-2010, 04:21 AM

Yes, but what is the point if features keep being added? There is no end to what you can test as there will always be something new to test. If the developers focus on bug fixing rather then new features, I'm sure people will come back to help test.

Gleeok

02-18-2010, 04:50 AM

Uhh guys...Newsflash. 2.5 is considered feature complete and 99% of the remaining work that needs to be done is nothing but bug fixes. Didn't anyone get the memo I sent out? :P

Freedom

02-18-2010, 05:29 AM

Uhh guys...Newsflash. 2.5 is considered feature complete and 99% of the remaining work that needs to be done is nothing but bug fixes. Didn't anyone get the memo I sent out? :P

yea, got that memo some 4 years ago and set back and watched a complete scripting systems built in defiance of it.
shall we count the days and number of releases since DN closed the suggestions forum?

Gleeok

02-18-2010, 06:36 AM

Yes Freedom, I agree with you that there certainly should of been at least one full release since all that. jman even said the same thing and I'm sure he wishes he would of put one out when he had the chance. While you're not going to get _L_ to fess to over feature jiggering or bad timing any time soon (he's stubborn, that one), he's trying to fix bugs and get it 'stable' as much as anybody.

According to my flawless broken logic, 2.5 will be done next week sometime. Just find yourself a reality to Gleeok metric conversion chart and you have an absolute time frame. Or, realize that the faster we fix the remaining bugs, the faster it will be done. As I said somewhere else; if one developer fixes the bugs in zc, it could take a while. Just like if only one person tests it, it may take a while to even find any bugs in the first place. You want to know when 2.5 will be done? I don't know Freedom. It depends on how many bugs are left and how hard they are to fix.

I also find it sort of amusing in a twisted sort of way that no one actually believes that no more features are being put in and putting out a release is the main goal. Man, you guys really did a number on the user base, not to mention dragging our credibility through the dirt. Jeez..

Freedom

02-18-2010, 09:29 AM

Man, you guys really did a number on the user base, not to mention dragging our credibility through the dirt.

give me a break, I simply told the truth as I saw it, and time has proven me right.
When all this started you weren't even a developer for that matter.
sugar coat it or paint it any color that amuses you, the truth will still be obvious to anyone who takes the time to look.

The results of the user base had nothing to do with the "you guys" you refer to, they had to do with the fact that builders could no longer build, and as a result players had nothing to play.

Gleeok

02-18-2010, 09:55 AM

No, I was referring to the zc devs and the sort of domino like effect we see here where everyone just assumes it's all lies, and at any moment someone's going to add in a weapon editor and enemy scripting engine and thus effectively add two million new bugs into zc. You misunderstood.

Freedom

02-18-2010, 10:24 AM

Then I stand corrected, my apologies.

ShadowTiger

02-18-2010, 03:53 PM

From the way I'm looking at it, there is nothing to distinguish "A Stable new release version" from "Build 2,500" from "The least unstable beta" from "The official 2.5" at all. One could make the argument that no new features should be added, (And then one would have to define "feature.") and then one could suggest that all unfinished features remain unfinished until all the bugs are ironed out of what already exists, release that as the milestone public release, and then finish off the unfinished features, debug those, and then release THAT as yet another public milestone release because that one is both stable and finished. Because again, some define finished as being bug-free, and some define finished as being both bug-free and completely inclusive of everything the features suggest it should have with nothing being incomplete.

Considering that the unfinished things can just be completed immediately after the milestone release, there's no need to complete any currently worked-on features now. So it doesn't really matter that things can go unfinished. The most important thing is the bug-fixed, rather than the completeness of the program by which to call it a finished 2.5 product.

Besides - 2.5 doesn't sound nearly as official as ZC 3.0. :p

Anthus

02-19-2010, 08:08 AM

Uhh guys...Newsflash. 2.5 is considered feature complete and 99% of the remaining work that needs to be done is nothing but bug fixes. Didn't anyone get the memo I sent out? :P

Hey, in all sincerity, I missed that one :P I am quite glad though; to hear it "officially" at least.

From the way I'm looking at it, there is nothing to distinguish "A Stable new release version" from "Build 2,500" from "The least unstable beta" from "The official 2.5" at all. One could make the argument that no new features should be added, (And then one would have to define "feature.") and then one could suggest that all unfinished features remain unfinished until all the bugs are ironed out of what already exists, release that as the milestone public release, and then finish off the unfinished features, debug those, and then release THAT as yet another public milestone release because that one is both stable and finished. Because again, some define finished as being bug-free, and some define finished as being both bug-free and completely inclusive of everything the features suggest it should have with nothing being incomplete.

Considering that the unfinished things can just be completed immediately after the milestone release, there's no need to complete any currently worked-on features now. So it doesn't really matter that things can go unfinished. The most important thing is the bug-fixed, rather than the completeness of the program by which to call it a finished 2.5 product.

Besides - 2.5 doesn't sound nearly as official as ZC 3.0. :p

Ooh, the semantics game :o This is a good point though. I think either way people would bitch. If a stable, yet "incomplete" version was released, you know... people would get pissed. To be frank, I think this is the best route, and I think people can just suck it up. I also think that as you also stated, the incomplete features could be finished after a new big release. Now, for me, and I'm sure other will agree, stability is more a component of "completeness" than a bunch of maybe-it-won't-crash features :s

So, if what Gleeok said is true; about just working on bug fixes as of now, I'll gladly jump in and do what I can to test (though, I only have had one very minor bug in quiet a long time, and I could not replicate it :s) It was during the feature jam of the last two years that I kinda of seriously lost hope, and interest.

I'm all for a capped off, yet stable version.