132 replies to this topic

[The Imp]

Thanks but let me assure you, I know the origin of the "BiG World Fixpack" github repository.

Well, then add the fixpack's github address to this BWS page.

It's like you weren't listening at all.

[subtledoctor]

This thread is kind of shocking. Are you seriously staking out the position that after spending however many hours coding a fix into the BWFixPack (hereinafter "the BWFP"), the fixer can't take 60 seconds or so to post in to mod's forums something like

BWFix #6

[one-sentence description of bug]

[copy/paste of BWFP code]

And really, best practice would be to do this even for mods with no active maintainer. In the past year or so a whole slate of such mods were picked up by new modders and updated. If they had reports of any bugs affecting the last earlier version, it would be way easier to make a better update. Which would ultimately help PLAYERS.

Like, I'm getting bug reports about Refinements v4 that are actually bugs going back to v3.3 but which I never knew about. I would much rather have given players a b4 with all of that stuff ironed out. But since nothing was ever posted about them in the v3.3 forum, it wasn't possible for me to fix it.

Honestly astonished that anyone could find this controversial. The whole point is that we are a bunch of players working together to make cool modifications for all players to use. How does the sentiment of "screw communication, some modders don't deserve it!!1!" help anyone?

tl;dr: Who cares if the mod set is responsive? The more information posted in an organized fashion, the better for everyone.

[The Imp]

This thread is kind of shocking. Are you seriously staking out the position that after spending...

Well, the entirety of the fixpack content is here... feel free to post on any forum you can't see my post on and make your spam available. And if you feel so inclined on SHSforum and G3, use the "The Imp Spamming." tag if you feel so inclined.

Edited by The Imp, 11 November 2017 - 09:26 AM.

[subtledoctor]

Those 60 seconds add up over the years... for hundreds of mods.

 

Sorry to be blunt, but, bull.  It's a little ridiculous that Camdawg is self-flagellating calling himself a whiner for engaging in reasonable discussion, and you are saying that you can't be bothered to make a short forum post, when all most people around here do is post on forums.  I mean you've already put more time and energy into this thread, decrying the practice of communicating bugs to modders, than you would have communicating a few bugs to a few modders.

 

Better to use a fraction of that time to check whether a central repository (BWP) has a new fix for your mod.

 

And this doesn't make any sense either.  How can any modder know whether and when to comb through the BWFP repository looking for fixes to their mods, when there is no notification of a new fix?  And you are literally arguing against making any sort of notification?  How does that even make sense?

 

Some of this seems to come from feelings of annoyance or frustration with some modders being unresponsive, or mods being unmaintained at all.  But why punish all modders for the (perceived) sins of a few?  Moreover, why not be a little understanding of what modders do here?  People have jobs, man.  People have to put food on the table, take care of families, etc.  And yet they produce things that you like to use, for free, to get more enjoyment out of a game someone else got paid for.  Why argue for making that harder to do?  How does that help anyone?

[Miksip]

I made a post which describes the problem with refinements and asked to remove this code in next version.

The answer i got was:

"Now" is certainly not the time, since you are writing in the forums of a mod without an owner. Refinements has not officially been updated since like 2012. Maybe even earlier - I don't even know.    ---by subtledoctor

And in the neighborhood topic he writes

I think it's up to rc19 at this point. Make sure you grab the latest release from the Github page, or just use BWS.   ---by subtledoctor

 

I also reported possible problem with "Botomless Bag of Holding" code in Vlad Compilation and asked to resolve it.

The answer:

Second, Bag of Holdings is okay, never encountered any problem with that. ---by Vlad

Why bother report anything to anyone if they are not going to see it as a problem even if you shove it to their faces and tell "Here it is. The problem."

 

[The Imp]

Why bother report anything to anyone if they are not going to see it as a problem even if you shove it to their faces and tell "Here it is. The problem."

You are actually most likely WRONG on the assumption you made somewhere... like I said in the thread you made.

[subtledoctor]

I'm arguing against human notifications, genius. Because it's a pointless, redundant and silly thing to suggest. No one would be enthusiastic about doing such a dreadfully boring job.

Who is talking about a job? What are you even talking about?

 How can any modder know whether and when to comb through the BWFP repository looking for fixes to their mods, when there is no notification of a new fix?

They don't need to know. They just check. Simple. Like you would check your mailbox everyday. It's called common sense. 

So, let's say I've made a couple mods, and I'm playing with them and they are working well, and a few players have posted on my mod's thread(s) to say they enjoy it and have not encountered any bugs. It's been several weeks or months since any updates were made or needed. I have no indication that there is any problem... but you think I should constantly spend my timing combing through the BWFP code, every day, just in case? You call that "common sense?" 'Cause, if so, I think you maybe don't have too much...

Also btw acting like a troll does not make you more persuasive. Just FYI.

I made a post which describes the problem with refinements and asked to remove this code in next version.
The answer i got was:

"Now" is certainly not the time, since you are writing in the forums of a mod without an owner. Refinements has not officially been updated since like 2012. Maybe even earlier - I don't even know.    ---byhttp://www.shsforums...-subtledoctor/] subtledoctor[/url]

 

Um, that was not a bug report. You suggested that one of the mod's signature features created by Littiz and TG Maestro be removed.

To clarify, you had said "you wasted your time on Use Scrolls and now is the time to remove it," and I said now is not the time, because the people who actually coded it have not been reading the Refinements forums or updating the mod in several years. The one person who has been working on Refinements (me) has actually followed your advice, and removed that code. So I pointed you to the new version which lacks what so offends you.

So... what's the problem again?

Edited by subtledoctor, 11 November 2017 - 08:56 PM.

[subtledoctor]

Uh, I never asked for anything. Not sure what you're reading. But your tendency to skip right to insults instead of saying something useful or intelligent is sad and undercuts whatever point you're trying to make.

Troll somewhere else, troll.

Edited by subtledoctor, 11 November 2017 - 07:41 PM.

[subtledoctor]

By the way, the Weidu version of the BWFP completely destroys whatever it touches. So that wonderful solution is actually pretty crappy.

Edited by subtledoctor, 11 November 2017 - 08:15 PM.

[Ineth]

Ouch, when I commented on Almateria's thread to ask about a BW-Fixpack patch that wasn't backported, I didn't think it would start a flame war...

 

As someone who appreciates both the work of modders that adds to these games' replayability, and the work of the BiG World contributors that makes it possible to install older mods on the EE and install many mods together, I hope it all gets sorted out...

 

---

 

@Roxanne, @ALIEN, I don't think the modders who commented here want to kill the BW-Fixpack. I think they're just saying that not knowing about fixes to their mod has resulted in wasted time (and generally a bad experience) for them.

 

Even if its not practical to completely solve the issue from your end, it wouldn't hurt to officially make it "best practice" for Fixpack contributors to notify modders at least when its easy to do so (e.g. the modder is known to be active and receptive to bug reports, and can be contacted on a forum on which the contributor has an account), right?

 

---

 

@modders

Conversely, I think it's also understandable that going through the process of trying to contact mod authors about patches, has resulted in wasted time (and generally a bad experience) for Fixpack contributers.

 

I don't think the "spending however many hours coding a fix, [...] take 60 seconds or so to post in to mod's forums" estimate holds up. Many of the patches in the Fixpack are routine changes, such as

 

* adding HANDLE_CHARSET blocks and similar to older mods to make them EE compatible

* adding BP-BGT Worldmap compatibility code

* adding the EET library files, and converting hard-coded chapter numbers etc. to use the variables defined therein

 

Once a fixer knows the ins and outs of such things, I think they can apply them to many mods in sequence without a lot of effort (all while working on a single repository with all the convenience provided by git, and no need to step "outside" of it). In fact, it looks like @agb1, when he was still active, actually automated a lot of such routine fixes so he could do them at the press of a button.

 

As for less routine patches (such bug fixes), it looks like a lot of them were first posted on one of the IE modding forums by someone, and then picked up and committed to the BW-Fixpack by someone else. Is that second person really responsible for finding out if the mod author already knows about the fix, and if not, carry it to them? One might argue that by collecting the fixes and committing them to a central repository, the BW contributors have already made it easier for mod authors to find out about them than when the fixes where scattered across various forums and sites...

 

And don't underestimate the effort involved in the extra "tell the mod author" step. In many cases, 60 seconds probably doesn't even cover finding out where to post the message. And then you'd need an account on the forum in question, explain the issue so that the mod author understands how to view the fixes even if they're not familiar with github, then check back later in case they have follow-up questions, or get sucked into flame wars (j/k ), etc.

 

In a perfect world, the Fixpack would have a "community manager" type position to follow up on everything that is done and go around and inform all the relevant people, but it's also understandable that no-one sees that as their calling.

 

---

 

Maybe technical solutions can help make things go more smoothly?

 

Such as setting up an automated RSS/Atom feed for each mod in the Fixpack, that the modder can subscribe to to get notified of changes to the patches for that particular mod?

 

---

 

By the way, the Weidu version of the BWFP completely destroys whatever it touches. So that wonderful solution is actually pretty crappy.

 

I've recently used it on my manual mega-mod install (i.e. without BWS) on BG2:EE on Linux, and after a few Linux-specific improvements (which I sent back to the Fixpack, and @Roxanne and @agb1 committed), everything seemed to work fine.

 

Does your "destroys whatever it touches" refer to a recent version of the BW-Fixpack, and if so, could you point me to the details? Since I've recently improved its Linux compatibility, I've gained at least a cursory understanding of how it works and I might be able to look into the issues you're having with it as well.

Edited by Ineth, 12 November 2017 - 01:17 AM.

[Roxanne]

This discussion makes clear that BWfixpack (and BWS as a consequence) need a change in procedures.

 

These steps need to be taken

1 - remove all *unauthorised* fixes.

2 - remove EET compatibility fixes from mods that have not been made compatible by authors until now. These are not fixes in the true sense but *conversions*. This effort was done some time back to support modders in converting their work to the new game and was considered an intermediate step. However, there are people who do not want their stuff in EET and this needs to be accepted. (Maybe a "last call" can be made to modders, who may decide that the EET fix to be treated like 4.b. below)

3 - emphasize to everyone reporting a bug in a general topic thread to consult the mod author. This has been done but not *supervised* by fixpack maintainers. (nor will that be done). It is the tfirst step in bug reporting to consult the author, this is out of question.

4 - New fixes will only be introduced if there is

a. sufficient evidence that a mod is not maintained

b. the mod author agrees to use fixpack as a means to publish a hotfix until he/she finds time to create a new version. It is understood that in such a case, the modder will notify when the fix can be removed

5 - BWS needs to take above changes into account by:

a. removing unauthorised EET updates from its selection

b. marking mods with known problems that cannot be fixed by either the author or by fixpack with an adequate warning (e.g. not pre-selecting them, only applying them to expert selections etc). This is already current practice but the number of affected mods may increase as a result of step1 above.

6 - BWS and Fixpack needs to change the idea that they capture each and every mod and try to integrate them into the Big World. The current debate is largely the result of this approach. Take a step back from this and accept that not everybody wants to be auto-assumed.

 

There may be other aspects to be considered, Solutions should be practical, not academic or fundamentalist statement. We need to accept that we cannot make everybody happy.

 

The BWS (and thus fixpack) must be understood as an open invitation to join your mod to the Big World Idea. If you say yes, then a minimum of co-operation is required - if you say no, nobody has a right to hijack your stuff. Players may just need to accept that some of their beloved mods have chosen to go on their own (e.g. NEJ/TS etc.)

 

This statement from the BWS:

 

Supported mods

• Almost all of them! (use the Mod Request Template link above if there is a mod you want added)

needs to be revised. It must be the modders decision to participate or not. Too many mods have been added because players asked for it and maybe a modder not even being aware of it. When everybody is aware of being part of a larger picture, we will not have discussions about *how was I to know?*

 

My vote is for quality over quantity.for BWS. It is the last straw for the concept, otherwise there is no chance for it to survive much longer.

 

@Ineth

 

A fairly good summary - except,

- there are no *routine fixes you can introduce by pressing a button*. Each problem is different and the main task (as every modder will know and agree) - is not so much finding the fix but finding the problem.

- Specifically modder sitting behind the unpenetrable walls of Kerzenburg (german for Candlekeep) are the ones to complain about not being notified when you beed a 10.000GP worth tome if you want to enter their sacred halls. Then they come up with their rules to enforce them on others and call such behaviour *courtesy*....

Edited by Roxanne, 12 November 2017 - 02:24 AM.

[The Imp]

By the way, the Weidu version of the BWFP completely destroys whatever it touches. So that wonderful solution is actually pretty crappy.

Just show me one completely destroyed mod by it ? I wonder if you actually know what you are even talking about.

I understand that as you can't use the Fixpack, you are suspicious on it, but there's like a hundred thousand people that have used it and how many of those have not needed to inform you on a false bug on multiple occasions because of the Fixpack and other BW products.

Edited by The Imp, 12 November 2017 - 03:31 AM.

[The Imp]

While this discussion rise few concerns, I don't see any reason to do a major policy shift for BWS and associated Fixpack. Please remember that there is still BWP/BWFxipack from Leonardo and such changes/requests have no effect for his work. So it is pointless for eg: to remove fixes from fixpack only to see them added to Leonardo version. People will use whatever will give them more fixes. Same for BWS: removing mods make no sense because anyone can add them or use older version.

I support wholly you on this and the subtledoctor subjects, which is why I started to report the tweak/fixes all over the forums, and will continue when I have the inclination... despite that we disagree on things on places, I can see your point in them.

Hmm, there's no need to close the discussion, we haven't seen it's end yet. Well, unless this is the last post.

[Roxanne]

@Roxanne

 

While this discussion rise few concerns, I don't see any reason to do a major policy shift for BWS and associated Fixpack. Please remember that there is still BWP/BWFxipack from Leonardo and such changes/requests have no effect for his work. So it is pointless for eg: to remove fixes from fixpack only to see them added to Leonardo version. People will use whatever will give them more fixes. Same for BWS: removing mods make no sense because anyone can add them or use older version.

 

So my final statement at this matter would be:

dear modders, we hear you complains, now you too are aware about the greater perspective of this issue, BWFxipack maintainers know that it's good to send updates but we don't have control over people who contribute to BWFixpac. There are technical solutions to avoid creating fixes in the first place and it's best solution for this problem. If it can't be set then there are measures which can be used to occasionally check for fixes.

 

Let's close this discussion until more damage to this community will be done. 

I disagree but I am most likely alone with my opinion.

BWS and Fixpack are very sick patients. You cannot keep them alive by giving them placebos.

A good doctor must have the courage to try everything that is possible. If there is a limb that infects the rest of the body, amputation may seem drastic but may save the life.

 

The damage is already done. You say that *do nothing* is the best way? It surely is the easiest.

 

Yes, let us forget about this topic and see what happens. There are no winners here today, only losers.

Edited by Roxanne, 12 November 2017 - 04:57 AM.

[subtledoctor]

As for less routine patches (such bug fixes), it looks like a lot of them were first posted on one of the IE modding forums by someone, and then picked up and committed to the BW-Fixpack by someone else. Is that second person really responsible for finding out if the mod author already knows about the fix, and if not, carry it to them?

No. They are not "really responsible." No one has suggested that or discussed it, except for that crazy asshole above. It's only a qustion of what would be reasonable and productive and effective. That's the question here... i don't know why people are getting so personal about this. This thread title is (was?) about "best practices," not rules or jobs or prescriptions.

Fact is, it is unreasonable to expect that modders will routinely comb through the BWFP fixes when they might be away from their mod for several weeks or months or more, with no indications of any problems, when their minds are on other things. Should they? Maybe - I'm not speaking to that point. The fact is, based on human nature, they won't. So designing some kind of rule or expectation around that is not likely to be productive and effective. That's all I'm saying.

Conversely, the person making changes in th BWFP 1) almost certainly has access t the bugged mod's .tp2 code; 2) almost certainly is someone comfotable reading and working with Weidu; 3) is probably (but not certainly) someone who tends to post around the various BG forums; 4) can probably (but not cerainly) easily find and post on the mod's forum/thread; and most importantly, 5) is already engaged in and spending time on working with that mod. Again, I'm not demanding or rquesting anything; just pointing out that, in this context, just dropping a note in a web forum is a pretty minimal expansion of what is already being done and is already on that person's mind. That seems easy enough and productive qnd effective enough that I'm willing to call it "best practice."

If the fixer isn't already a poster? Don't worry about it. If the mod doesn't have a forum or thread to post in? Don't worry about it. Etc. The point here is not to impose unreasonable obligations on anyone; only to discuss what is most reasonable.

it's also understandable that going through the process of trying to contact mod authors about patches, has resulted in wasted time

I would suggest that leaving useful information for others to find it is never a waste of time.

@ALIEN please don't start in lobbing personal insults lieu of productive conversation, like some assholes have. You'r better than that.

My mention of the BWFP was hyperbolic in that it doesn't actually destroy everything... but the word "destroy" was meant literally. I had mod install failures after applying the fixpack, and when I looked at the mods' .tp2 files to see what the problem was, I found that in several cases, thousands of lines of code had simply been deleted. I could only do a sucessful install by downloading new versions of all the mods in my game folder, and not applying the fixpack at all. I'm not on my computer so I can't rproduce it right now.

Ironically, I'm not sure where to notofy anyone about the bug ( ) becquse I'm not aware of a forum or thread for discussing the BWFP. So I mentioned it here because it is borderline relevant. If there is a more appropriate place to discuss it, please let me know.

[Almateria]

Ouch, when I commented on Almateria's thread to ask about a BW-Fixpack patch that wasn't backported, I didn't think it would start a flame war...

 

what did you do

what did you dooooooo