Jump to content


Photo

Bug reporting practices discussion


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#121 GeN1e

GeN1e

    A very GAR character

  • Modder
  • 1604 posts

Posted 18 February 2018 - 06:21 PM

Also frustrating is when expression of that opinion gets decried as "censorship..." which, I mean look that word up in a dictionary - it does not apply here.

Also frustrating is when people act shitty towards others and justify it with "go find a safe space if you don't want people to be shitty!" ... but then start crying when you give it back to them.

I thought, for some reason, that you in particular would understand. Though perhaps the fault is mine for not recognizing the message in your first post :unsure:

I apologize if anything in my posts has caused you frustration or offended you in some way, that was never the intent.


Retired from modding.


#122 subtledoctor

subtledoctor
  • Member
  • 613 posts

Posted 19 February 2018 - 02:09 PM

Hey, that's fine.  I retain my pessimism that the thread can rise out of its current toxic stew of shittiness and be useful.  But I'd be happy to be proven wrong!  Go ahead, someone try to give useful advice to temnix and let's see how it goes.



#123 -me-

-me-
  • Guest

Posted 19 February 2018 - 04:41 PM

The thread is in its current state of toxic shittiness because the good modders have already understood the value of the discussion and went back to doing what they do best: fixing things.

It's the other vocal, lazy, loudmouths who want to inject drama into the picture and say things like "Oh, I have to scour all over the internet like Indiana Jones to find all the bugs and fixes?! Forget it! I won't do it unless you notify me and place all the bugs and fixes on my lap!"

Seriously, dude. If you don't want to do it, don't do it. Stop making one excuse after another.

#124 subtledoctor

subtledoctor
  • Member
  • 613 posts

Posted 19 February 2018 - 08:46 PM

Thank you sir.  After your bracing and inspirational inveighing I have decided to stop making excuses, and finally embrace my solemn duty to you.  I will stop shirking my responsibilities now.  I have indeed been a bad, bad boy.  Please know that I have taken your recommendation to heart and will file your instructions in a very important place*, so that I never lose track of their guidance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

* up my butt.



#125 -me-

-me-
  • Guest

Posted 19 February 2018 - 09:15 PM

hey Doc, I wouldn't suggest that either... 'cause you'll only come back a minute later whining about how you've been inconvenienced yet again. Just try not be an over-sensitive drama queen; I heard that works wonders.

#126 Creepin

Creepin
  • Administrator
  • 1676 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 01:10 AM

Naturally, I wouldn't give permission to change anything about my mod, except on one's own machine.

That's fair enough. Luckily, fixpack doesn't change your mod, it just so happens that it coincidentally changes the same resources as your mod. No permission needed for that.


Edited by Creepin, 21 February 2018 - 01:10 AM.

The Old Gold - v0.2 WIP (mod for BGT/BWP/BWS)


#127 subtledoctor

subtledoctor
  • Member
  • 613 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 09:20 AM

Actually the BWFixPack changes mod files directly, before they are installed. That's why the mod folder needs to be in your game directory and you run it before any other mods.

(I don't know or really care about how that affects permission. I think the concern of most modders is redistribution of their mods.)

Edited by subtledoctor, 21 February 2018 - 09:22 AM.


#128 Creepin

Creepin
  • Administrator
  • 1676 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 10:39 AM

Actually the BWFixPack changes mod files directly, before they are installed. That's why the mod folder needs to be in your game directory and you run it before any other mods.
Details, details... in the end players having bug-free gaming experience is all that is important, no matter be it provided by original mod author or fixpack contributor. It is my firm belief that any attempt at not permitting fixing bugs should be ignored and, in an ideal scenario, ridiculed.

Edited by Creepin, 21 February 2018 - 10:42 AM.

The Old Gold - v0.2 WIP (mod for BGT/BWP/BWS)


#129 Roxanne

Roxanne

    Modder

  • Member
  • 3564 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 11:05 AM

Actually the BWFixPack changes mod files directly, before they are installed. That's why the mod folder needs to be in your game directory and you run it before any other mods.
Details, details... in the end players having bug-free gaming experience is all that is important, no matter be it provided by original mod author or fixpack contributor. It is my firm belief that any attempt at not permitting fixing bugs should be ignored and, in an ideal scenario, ridiculed.

You like facts?

 

The last time a patch for any mod was added to BWFixpack was in November 2016.

That patch was enabling EET compatibility for an NPC mod (Angelo), a mod that was last updated in 2008. Its author is officially retired. The mod has no maintainer (and no need for one).

 

Any other activities around BWFixpack since that date were either removal of patches for updated mods or the optimization of tools used by the fixpack.

 

For these reasons, it makes no sense to involve the BWFixpack in this discussion, it will only reveal posters who have no knowledge of the subject.


Edited by Roxanne, 21 February 2018 - 11:06 AM.

The Sandrah Saga

another piece of *buggy, cheesy, unbalanced junk*

 


#130 Creepin

Creepin
  • Administrator
  • 1676 posts

Posted 21 February 2018 - 11:20 AM

For these reasons, it makes no sense to involve the BWFixpack in this discussion, it will only reveal posters who have no knowledge of the subject.
If you cared to read the discussion carefully you would noticed that it was about theory of fixing bugs, not facts that happened, so dragging 2016 or 2008 here all of sudden is what reveals failure to follow the topic at hand.

Edited by Creepin, 21 February 2018 - 11:36 AM.

The Old Gold - v0.2 WIP (mod for BGT/BWP/BWS)


#131 jastey

jastey
  • Staff
  • 1842 posts

Posted 22 February 2018 - 10:34 AM

It is my firm belief that any attempt at not permitting fixing bugs should be ignored and, in an ideal scenario, ridiculed.
I am curious: Where did you encounter modders who attempted to prevent bugs being fixed in their mods?

#132 Creepin

Creepin
  • Administrator
  • 1676 posts

Posted 22 February 2018 - 10:59 AM

In this very topic :)


Edited by Creepin, 22 February 2018 - 11:01 AM.

The Old Gold - v0.2 WIP (mod for BGT/BWP/BWS)


#133 subtledoctor

subtledoctor
  • Member
  • 613 posts

Posted 22 February 2018 - 12:39 PM

Don't be silly. Even temnix (!), the guy who doesn't want to gee specific when he asks for guidance because he's worried about people stealing his modding secrets, said he has no problem with changes made "on players' machines." Which is where the FixPack is applied.

Anyway who cares?? If someone ridiculously says "I don't want the FixPack touching my mod" why not let that modder stew in their bugs?

For me, I don't care a whit - go ahead and FixPack anything you like about my mods. Of course if you don't tell me about the bugs you find/fix, and I update the mod for other reasons, and the version difference messes up the FixPack, that's unfortunate... but honestly not the end of the world.

Honestly it might be worth a calm, rational conversation about the FixPack and best practices. I was hoing to liken the FP to hotfixes in relationship to modder permission; I've made a bunch of hotfixes, such as for DR and SCS etc., and I never asked permission. So this supports Creepin's opinion just above.

BUT, the FP is not a bunch of hotfixes. It changes the mods, and there is a real (if remote) danger there. Someone who is not familiar with my mod, making changes to it, might inadvertantly screw things up. Say I have a non-functioning 172 effect because the target spell is 8 letters long; the FP might rename it to make the removal effect work. But what if some other component - or some other mod - uses that 8-letter file in a REQUIRE_FILE or an ACTION_IF FILE_EXISTS...?

Actual hotfixes, that fix things after a mod is installed, seem safer/better in a number of ways. Another benefit is, depending on the way the fix is coded, it might never cause problems or get out-of date, even if a mod is updated.

Of course that's not always true; sometimes modifying the install code is the best or only way to fix the mod. The FP is definitely a great thing, which I value and appreciate. But Maybe it's worth considering having two different kinds of FixPacks: a pre-install FixPack, and a post-install HotFixPack.