| Blockland Forums > Modification Help |
| RTB Development |
| << < (706/889) > >> |
| -Jetz-:
--- Quote from: Ephialtes on August 27, 2011, 06:03:59 AM ---This was actually a feature in RTB v2's add-on uploading system but I removed it since I didn't see much value in it and nobody really used it. The most I'd be willing to implement would be a "minor update" checkbox which would just increment the version number by .1 but I can't really see the benefit in having huge granularity for version numbers. --- End quote --- Add-ons are usually pretty minor on their own, compared to the game as a whole. RTB makes use of it pretty well, separating major content updates from bugfixes, but I doubt that would mean as much when used to identify an update to a shotgun, which doesn't have much room for major content updates. On top of that, you'd have to worry about the variety of opinions on what constitutes a minor update. Some people may never even use it so you get inconsistent version numbering between add-on developers. However, as I mentioned, larger add-ons like RTB make use of it well, so there is some room for it. Perhaps large scale moods like Team Deathmatch, CityRPG mods, large content packs, and other minigames, could have a use for it if they are the kind of thing that may have either kind of update. I say only put that feature in if it comes with a way to determine which add-ons would have need for that distinction, and then only apply it to those ones. |
| DontCare4Free:
--- Quote from: -Jetz- on August 27, 2011, 04:01:52 PM ---Add-ons are usually pretty minor on their own, compared to the game as a whole. RTB makes use of it pretty well, separating major content updates from bugfixes, but I doubt that would mean as much when used to identify an update to a shotgun, which doesn't have much room for major content updates. On top of that, you'd have to worry about the variety of opinions on what constitutes a minor update. Some people may never even use it so you get inconsistent version numbering between add-on developers. However, as I mentioned, larger add-ons like RTB make use of it well, so there is some room for it. Perhaps large scale moods like Team Deathmatch, CityRPG mods, large content packs, and other minigames, could have a use for it if they are the kind of thing that may have either kind of update. I say only put that feature in if it comes with a way to determine which add-ons would have need for that distinction, and then only apply it to those ones. --- End quote --- Add an option to choose whether the mod has an API. Then, when pushing an update, let the user choose whether it's a major version, minor version or patch version (semver, major versions contain backwards-incompatible API changes, minor versions contain backwards-compatible API changes, patch versions don't change the API). |
| -Jetz-:
--- Quote from: DontCare4Free on August 27, 2011, 05:36:35 PM ---Add an option to choose whether the mod has an API. Then, when pushing an update, let the user choose whether it's a major version, minor version or patch version (semver, major versions contain backwards-incompatible API changes, minor versions contain backwards-compatible API changes, patch versions don't change the API). --- End quote --- Sounds like a pretty specific way to do it. We probably don't need to go into 3-part versions for just add-ons. True, one idea is a checkbox for a user to specify that it is an add-on that would take advantage of multi-part versions, but I don't think some users could be trusted to make that decision intelligently. Perhaps the reviewer could determine if that attribute is appropriate, but it may be simpler to just give the checkbox to the person reviewing the mod. |
| DontCare4Free:
--- Quote from: -Jetz- on August 27, 2011, 06:33:01 PM ---Sounds like a pretty specific way to do it. We probably don't need to go into 3-part versions for just add-ons. True, one idea is a checkbox for a user to specify that it is an add-on that would take advantage of multi-part versions, but I don't think some users could be trusted to make that decision intelligently. Perhaps the reviewer could determine if that attribute is appropriate, but it may be simpler to just give the checkbox to the person reviewing the mod. --- End quote --- What about giving mod reviewers the ability to uncheck it? Besides, if they can't even be trusted with specifying if it has an API, can they really be trusted with making add-ons? Also, for example weapon mods would work a bit different. Also, it's kind of important to have it three parts, because then people can be sure that as long as it's the same major version mods depending on it are compatible. So dependencies would specify a major and a minor version they depend on, but not the patch version. Then the client would automatically check whether the minor is at least the required one, and that the major is exactly the one required. Another thing that would go hand-in-hand with that is if the server stores the latest release of each major version. |
| Ephialtes:
I don't think add-on versioning deserves this depth of discussion. In all truthfulness I don't see the benefit in even having minor/major updates when 99% of add-ons are incredibly simple functionality-wise (bringing up APIs is an absurd notion), and I probably won't even get around to adding the "minor update" thing I mentioned. Nobody even cares about what version of a file they're getting - they're displayed with a popup telling them an update's available, they download it. Sorted. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |