Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jacob/Lee]

What's been holding up wiki editing, the naming issue?

[Quietust]

It was disabled so we could figure out how we were going to handle everything, and so I could have my bot copy over most of the v0.31 content (which is generally still valid). Now that that's pretty much done, it's just a matter of having them turn it back on.

[monk12]

Welp, since I'm not in this subforum very often I'd just like to take a moment to salute the Heroes of the Wiki- you've saved many a dorf, and doomed countless more. I appreciate your efforts on their behalf.

[G-Flex]

Er... is a new namespace actually necessary at all? Very little about 0.31 was actually deprecated, as far as I know. I really don't see a reason to introduce a new namespace, especially since 0.31 and 0.34 are similar enough that I don't really see people going back to 0.31 for any particular reason.

[Tarran]

It's not going back, it's staying. There will be those with 31 forts that want to finish, those who think 34 is too buggy, those who want to wait until 34 development is done and mods/utilities are well developed... There's always reasons.

[G-Flex]

Then how many namespaces are we going to have, eventually? Is there any sort of policy for when to start a new one?

[Emi]

Then how many namespaces are we going to have, eventually? Is there any sort of policy for when to start a new one?

We've been doing it when a save incompatible release comes out. The reason being that some people are going to stay on that version, so it's nice to have relevant information for them.

[G-Flex]

By that standard, 0.34.01 and 0.34.02 should have different namespaces.

[Tarran]

So picky. Fine then. They're doing it by Major save incompatible releases.

[G-Flex]

I'm just pointing out the lack of policy in case Toady winds up breaking save compatibility more often, or releasing major versions more often. It's better to answer these questions before they need to be answered.

[Mohreb el Yasim]

i would go with DF2012 or 0.34
0.34 is better in a way that it is ok even if we have an other major release in 2012 (not much likely) and DF2012 hase more common sense in it as people like to refer to 2012 ...
i would prefer 0.34 but it migth only be because i am working in informatics so well it is quite a common term for me
but the  DFVD i am against we havent called the last relaes DFHD neither (it was released on Hugh's day, if i remember well) and all this hessle about valentin's day, well it is just a commercial thing for me where you "should express your love as no other day in the year" (::irony:: ) well nope, i will express whenever i like to ...
(:: Mohreb is going away murmuring about conventions, for hours ... :: )

[Quatch]

Why not call the current version "Current", then rename them to version # when there is an incompatible new current version? That would avoid needing to know in advance what the final version number of a series of compatible releases is, and avoids the year name which isn't very attractive.

[Shades]

Why not call the current version "Current", then rename them to version # when there is an incompatible new current version? That would avoid needing to know in advance what the final version number of a series of compatible releases is, and avoids the year name which isn't very attractive.

This seems sensible

[Quietust]

We considered that, but it'd cause all sorts of problems when it becomes necessary to rename it.

[King Mir]

You (or We) should probably consider reevaluating the need for a separate namespace in a year's time or so, based on how many people still play the older release.