Print

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

[MrWiggles]

Also, adding new features before a bugfix does not introduce more bugs than adding new features after a bug fix.

Of course it can, in zilion ways. For example, some behaviour of new feature can rely on unfixed old bug. When you at last fix that old bug, new feature mysteriously broke, often in werid way and often months after originally writing it - so it will be very hard to make connection between two, not to mention actually fixing this secondary bug.

The features are going in at some point, and the bugs are getting fixed at some point. Introducing the bugs and then doing a big bugfixing push strikes me as a lot more sensible than...

Except this is not what Toady do. He writes code (read: introduces bugs), writes code, writes code, fix some bugs, writes code, writes code, writes code, fix some... this cannot end well. Proper (or at least "properer") way is: writes code, fix bugs, writes code, fix bugs... in other words, IMVHO he too rarely do bug fixing. And yes, I am very well aware this is what most of community want. It saddens me.

Toady has bug fixes in every release. There easier to track in my opinion with the introduction of the Mantis system. As of the 2010 release, there have been an average of 18.4 bugs quashed with every release with a preference for crash bugs and typos. Most bugs get fixed within 2 months of being reported, and bugs in the 5+ month rage are in the minority, with it skewing to even more a minority in the 6 and seven month range.

Its remains unknown if Toady has worked on the longer standing bugs. We simply lack the knowledge of which bugs he has worked on (but not fixed), or currently working on. I like to think that he has, but thats the optimist inside of me.

[j0nas]

This thread gives me hope.

I haven't played DF after the new versions with the underground were added, because they have simply all been bug-ridden messes since then.  I have come here now and then hoping that maybe today is the version that Toady decides to fix the big bugs rather than just adding new buggy features, but no such luck yet.

At least I'm not the only one who wants to see some bugfixin's. :)

[Artzbacher]

No bugs are disturbing to me as I never use hospitals. I really have a hard time understanding how some people refrain from using newer versions because of a handful of bugs, seeing as only one of them is potentially disastrous. At least your dwarves won't run out to fetch dirty old socks during the middle of a siege anymore. If you don't want them to, that is.

Also, as MrWiggles pointed out, there's bugfixing with every release. No need to fret.

[Kogut]

Most bugs get fixed within 2 months of being reported, and bugs in the 5+ month rage are in the minority, with it skewing to even more a minority in the 6 and seven month range.

Rather:

Most fixed bugs get fixed within 2 months of being reported, and after 5+ month chance for fix approaches 0. So no hope for bugs 5, 15, 26, 27, 28, 32, 36, 37, 39, 41, 46 (memory leak!) etc.

[MrWiggles]

Most bugs get fixed within 2 months of being reported, and bugs in the 5+ month rage are in the minority, with it skewing to even more a minority in the 6 and seven month range.

Rather:

Most fixed bugs get fixed within 2 months of being reported, and after 5+ month chance for fix approaches 0. So no hope for bugs 5, 15, 26, 27, 28, 32, 36, 37, 39, 41, 46 (memory leak!) etc.

I refrained from doing a count of open bugs, as I found that harder to quantify, as the open number represents duplicate reports (that haven't been filed as such, a minority), and possible none bug. So I did a count for some other thread on when bugs got fixed, as that was to me was a more defentive quantification measure of bug fixes.

[NSQuote]

1. Contaminants - Eternal forgotten beast extracts tend to kill forts.
2. Crutches - Having to design hospitals especially for killing patients seems superfluous.
3. Training & Combat ammo - Obvious reasons. It would also be nice to assign marksdwarves to go resupply rather than engage in melee.
4. Clothes - They've been overlooked for a long time, but having dwarves wear your new products feels nice.

Arranged by priority. Basically only the contaminants are a true game breaker.

These are the are the main four I'd like to see done. They are the major bugs that frequently come up, so I'd guess that during the bug fixing push Toady would want to focus on them. At least, I hope so, as legions of useless dwarves with broken toes is fairly annoying (even if the idea of a suicide hospital is fairly Dwarven).

And of course, the dreaded bone artifact bug. So many urists of valuable metals... wasted. ;____;

[madciol]

Toady has bug fixes in every release.

Technically yes, every release have something. Practically speaking, he does worthwile bugfixing (this so-called bugfixing push) rarely. Too rarely.

There easier to track in my opinion with the introduction of the Mantis system. As of the 2010 release, there have been an average of 18.4 bugs quashed with every release with a preference for crash bugs and typos. Most bugs get fixed within 2 months of being reported, and bugs in the 5+ month rage are in the minority, with it skewing to even more a minority in the 6 and seven month range.

Your results do not include unfixed bugs, thus rendering them biased and worthless. Your excuses will not change that.

[MrWiggles]

There easier to track in my opinion with the introduction of the Mantis system. As of the 2010 release, there have been an average of 18.4 bugs quashed with every release with a preference for crash bugs and typos. Most bugs get fixed within 2 months of being reported, and bugs in the 5+ month rage are in the minority, with it skewing to even more a minority in the 6 and seven month range.

Your results do not include unfixed bugs, thus rendering them biased and worthless. Your excuses will not change that.

How is it biased?
Heck, I even clearly stated there is a preference for typo fixes. Which probably isn't a hard or time consuming thing to fix.

Count the number of bugs fix.

Count the length of time it took for those bugs to be fixed.

Therefore you can extrapolate when most bugs will get fix, and can show that lingering bugs are a minority.

If you can propose a methodology for counting the currently open bugs without having to shift through every bug manually, then that be a count I'd be interested in too. Though I dont think this tells us much, as we do not if Toady has worked on those bugs at all, or how long he has worked on them.

There is a difference between having 30 opens bugs that havent been worked on and 30 open bugs that been worked on. This difference, I think matters a lot for the still open bugs.

These are not excuses, but measured reasons why I pursued my quantification method.

[Kogut]

can show that lingering bugs are a minority.

Rather: bug unfixed in 5 months will not be fixed.

Here is my attempt.
9 months from first release of 0.31 (from 1 april)
2 releases per month.
18,4 bugfix per release, 26,8 for month.
1807 open bugs (I will assume that 1500 are verified and real bugs)
81 months to fix reported bugs.

So it will never happen - in fact we see increasing number of bugs, not decreasing.

[therahedwig]

Considering everyone is happily throwing around statistics. Most commercial A-list PC games still have about 7000 bugs upon launch(I would look up the source for that if I'd could be bothered). And that's with quality assurance. And then there's still gamebreakers, blocks and crashers in there. Most console-games don't have this as badly because the publisher can risk their standing with the console manufacturer, but PCs are a different story.

Bethesda's games, for example, are so buggy that one wonders if they think 'quality assurance' is some lovecraftian concept, and the Sims 3, which I have been playing, has ingame world-simulation that completely kills the gamebalance(let the game run for a day and everyone but the active family is either dead or a vampire). It's so bad that many players are using a mod that replaces the system entirely. And even then that game has bugs that can corrupt your savegame.

My point is, while the amount of bugs and their effect on further development is a valid concern, it should be compared with the regular state of affairs for most PC-games, especcially those of similar complexity.

None the less, my favorite bugs-I-wanna-see-fixed are the hospital, contaminants and the clothing bugs.

[Kogut]

Can you show source - I believe you but I am interested where you found this.
@bugs - I see that I am spoiled by OpenTTD devteam.

[j0nas]

Bethesda's games, for example, are so buggy that one wonders if they think 'quality assurance' is some lovecraftian concept, and the Sims 3, which I have been playing, has ingame world-simulation that completely kills the gamebalance(let the game run for a day and everyone but the active family is either dead or a vampire). It's so bad that many players are using a mod that replaces the system entirely. And even then that game has bugs that can corrupt your savegame.

'Someone else has released a buggier game' is not a valid excuse.  Nor is 'everyone else is doing it, like totally man'.

No bugs are disturbing to me as I never use hospitals.

Nor is 'I don't use the parts of the game that are affected by bugs so they totally don't count'.

[madciol]

Therefore you can extrapolate when most bugs will get fix, and can show that lingering bugs are a minority.

I cannot fathom how you can say this with straight face when anyone can open Mantis and see for himself current state of affairs. I give up and shut up, at least for this thread.

[Sowelu]

And of course, the dreaded bone artifact bug. So many urists of valuable metals... wasted. ;____;

I would swear I thought that one got fixed last release...

[jmancube]

I love to see bug fixes and such, but for me, there doesn't seem to be too many game breaking bugs (for me anyways). Getting marksdwarves up and running was a bit of a pain though (they still seem to have difficulty picking up ammo and such), and I wouldn't mind seeing the hospital bugs fixed. I would definitely push for optimization though. Having the ability to have a fortress that doesn't die a fps death would be nice. But truthfully, I would stand by whatever Toady chooses to do. I love this game far too much to ever really mind any of the bugs. In fact, I think some of the bugs lend a sort of quirkiness to the game that makes it fun.