Arioch Posted December 14, 2001 Randy has updated the ZDoom pages with a reminder that if you've been experiencing random crashes with ZDoom 1.23b28, that there has been released an interim update 1.23b28a which is now available from the main ZDoom files page in addition to where it was posted in the ZDoom forums. In 1.23b29-related news, he is still working on the new changes, and the original estimate of "the next day or two" was probably a bit optimistic. 0 Share this post Link to post
Moonflower Posted December 14, 2001 So who's a retard? Yea that's right, ME. 0 Share this post Link to post
Aardappel Posted December 14, 2001 So this is the second version of version 28 of version 23 of the first version. Talk about "version angst" :) Hey, what about sticking to v1.2, v1.3, v2.0 etc ? It's a well known principle that as software becomes more complex people get more and more scared to step up to the next version. I have started to just use dates as versions, works much better... none of this "when is <major version> done" crap. 0 Share this post Link to post
Guest wondersmith Posted December 14, 2001 I'm a great fan of ZDoom--it's the Co-Op Certification Laboratory's favorite port--but it's clearly suffering from "feature creep". Here's what keeps happening: Randy announces a new version with bug fixes from the last release plus a bunch of new features. He says he expects that the next release will be 1.23 final. But then he finds more bugs in the features he just added...and while he's fixing them he adds more new features...and...and... So here we are with an engine more powerful than Half-Life with the utterly ludicrous version number 1.23b28a. Even Microsoft would be impressed. Randy, you're a genius, a boon to the Doom community, and an all-around great guy, but please, could we have a solid 1.23 final release? You can always add new features to 1.24. :-) 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted December 14, 2001 you whiners shut up so long as the program is continually improving, what does it matter what we refer to it as? 0 Share this post Link to post
Opulent Posted December 15, 2001 as a coder, I think one shouldn't add any more features than the release was supposed to add -- focus on those. that's what versions are for. but this is a bit different; Randy gets a lot of feedback and Doomers-in-waiting for each successive build. If there weren't so many people playing and asking for Zdoom/Legacy builds, then we would probably only see final releases. And I am darn glad to see those incremental builds in there! Here's to Zdoom for adding so much fuel to the fire of Doom's unstoppable locomotive... 0 Share this post Link to post
inferno_45 Posted December 15, 2001 omg, this version is actually stable. 0 Share this post Link to post
999cop Posted December 15, 2001 wth? I thought randy has moved the site at doomworld, and now he moved it out from doomworld back? IMO, randy, if by any chance that you would read this message, I have a request in the 1.23, I'm not sure if it has been included already, so I'd suggest this anyway that if it's possible for you can do, please add back the doom oldschool feature - silent sprites effects, like silent bfg and such what I'm talking about. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fredrik Posted December 15, 2001 999COP: Feature requests of that kind would be the reason why ZDoom 1.23 never goes final >:| 0 Share this post Link to post
kristus Posted December 15, 2001 Arioch: When Zeta Doom 1.23 final comes so will Daedalus ... 0 Share this post Link to post
inferno_45 Posted December 15, 2001 there is one more feature I would like added... the ability to internally play XM's. 0 Share this post Link to post
Test-0 Posted December 15, 2001 I think it would be cool if Zdoom supported avi's in the game for, like, wall textures or something. Errr.... wait.... less ideas = more chance of new Zdoom. Forget what I said. ^_^; =) 0 Share this post Link to post
inferno_45 Posted December 15, 2001 oh, wait. it alreadt plays XM's...my bad, my bad. :) 0 Share this post Link to post
Lazer Posted December 15, 2001 Speaking of Daedalus, Doom "2000" is more like Doom 2002. (if we are lucky) 0 Share this post Link to post
Erik Posted December 15, 2001 Don't bash Randy, he's a great coder and you should be thankful for his contribution to this community. 0 Share this post Link to post
dustbunny Posted December 15, 2001 NO RANDYBASHING HERE ALL BETABASHING HERE HERE'S ALL FINAL -I- 0 Share this post Link to post
Meat_Head Posted December 15, 2001 I not bitching or whining, yyou sad basrads! I never seen a program in Beta for almost two years!, except Micro$oft coded stuff it's always "Beta". 0 Share this post Link to post
Guest Matt Posted December 15, 2001 Randy should take a cue from MAME and just call the next version 1.52, and stop keeping it at 1.23bXX. In fact, just drop the bXX completely. And MAME got sick of this at .37b16... 0 Share this post Link to post
Arioch Posted December 15, 2001 And while we're at it he could make arbitrary version number changes. Tomorrow he can release whatever the most recent build he's got cooked up as 1.5, then next week he can release 3.0, and the week after that he can move back to 2.2 ... fuck it 1.23b28a is perfectly sufficient 0 Share this post Link to post
Guest Captain Napalm Posted December 15, 2001 Who cares what he calls it? As long there is a way to distinguish old versions from new versions any method is fine by me. Is saving fixed in the new beta yet? 0 Share this post Link to post
Doom Posted December 15, 2001 what's the idea in keeping something 'beta' for such a long time, in such a way; is 1.23 an 'final' version (in which he will stop development, at least for a long time?). betas are prerelease versions, especially for commercial applications, free software develops less formally and doesnt need such a term; it has to do with how the program is distributed, a 'public beta' is practically an oxymoron. it's like each version of zdoom was a different 'game' of course it's just a name, but it sure makes people wonder (it's not like zdoom is a port needing attention, btw) oh, does anyone know if 28a is the same as 28-333? 0 Share this post Link to post
kristus Posted December 15, 2001 It's reffered to as beta because it's a unfinished 1.23 version.. if it's reffered as version 1.23.28 then people will not agnowledge it as a beta and start ranting about how much it sucks cause of all the bugs.. 0 Share this post Link to post
Doom Posted December 15, 2001 no. free software like zdoom is always in development (unless the coder decides to leave it entirely or something). people will bitch anyway, thats the nature of (many) users or customers. reread my post :P 0 Share this post Link to post
kristus Posted December 15, 2001 Legacy team used to ignore making betas.. they just hopped to the next versiion.. they got shit like hell for that.. now they release betas instead.. people don't complain as much anymore.. 0 Share this post Link to post
Doom Posted December 15, 2001 well, ok, im not a coder so maybe i dont know how stupid users can be in this respect, my point was that 'beta' is for a limited release among trusted testers. a big fat disclaimer on the main documentation and the project site is another way to keep these annoyances away 0 Share this post Link to post
deep Posted December 15, 2001 'beta' is for a limited release among trusted testers. =================== Not really. Like version numbers, everyone can make their own rules. For example, Winzip has a "beta" for everyone. So does Eudora, just to name a few. 0 Share this post Link to post