Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
1v1
Cake Factory
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 22:13:00 -
[61]
One fix? What about all the people who still have relog every 30 mins due the eve slowly eating up all available memory. This has been this way since the graphics patch, i cannot believe you still have not plugged the hole in 2 months!
◄█[Auction] 425mm Autocannon II BPO [Auction]█► |
Niki Silver
Ethereal Imperium
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 22:29:00 -
[62]
Two effing months of bugged Trinity and you have one fix?
I think you guys need to bring in one of those job evaluation consultants that weeds out the worthless members of your staff. But I supposed you havn't because that would mean every last one of you would be without a job and eve would shut down.
Mid Feb and one ******* fix. You guys are ******* pathetic.
Ethereal Imperium [E-IMP] is recruiting! Please visit our webpage for more information. |
Letouk Mernel
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 23:11:00 -
[63]
Will this fix the forum avatars for newbies, which according to Mr. T20 is one patch away?
|
Katana Seiko
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 23:50:00 -
[64]
Three hours for a patch of that size? You have to be kidding! --- This is your Captain speaking. Thank you for flying with our spaceline. Please remain seated until the ship has completely burned out. Thank you. |
Dresden Samos
Little Fuzzy Creatures of Mayhem and Destruction
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 01:07:00 -
[65]
That certainly is an attention-getting news item. I suspect there are more changes than just that one, but the news was presented in this way so that a lot of people would take notice and be sure to train a long skill.
People complaining about lost skill training time for extended downtimes are annoying. >.<
|
Komen
Gallente Trinity Nova
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 02:23:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Dian Cecht
Originally by: Terianna Eri CCP I fail to see how this patch will boost Amarr
Amarr characters will now be able to log in...
Dian
That's more of a nerf than a boost, I think. ___________________________________
Wielder of the Trout of Doom(tm)! ___________________________________
|
Loyal Servant
Caldari Viper Intel Squad Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 05:59:00 -
[67]
As someone pointed out, for you to increase your build version by 3,194 your version scheme is either really b0rked or you guys changed a lot more than some login screen thing.
It would also seem that a login screen thing could be remedied by a client patch and not necessarily a server and client patch... but okay.
So, why would you guys increase the build by that much if your just 'fooling' around? I have my makefiles generate my version header that increments the version number in my code as well, but .. i would have to compile my code 3,194 times to simulate what you did... unless you guys just pick a larger number and plug it in.... (********..)
In other words, a lot of people don't buy this 'we fixed the login screen' and we increased the build version by 3,194 just for that. I don't, and this is what I do for a living.
So, why is ccp messing with my sig?
|
Yura Naten
Caldari Solarflare Heavy Industries Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 06:21:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Sky Marshal Edited by: Sky Marshal on 15/02/2008 00:05:44
I never encounter this curious bug for the moment, so this can be useful to have this patch, but I can't avoid this kind of statement :
Is it all ?
No fix for the annoying local & fleet behaviour ? No fix for the behaviour of the items/ships panel ? No fix for the annoying scrollbar bug ? No fix for the first stucked page of the contract section ?
Oh yes, I forgot the video memory leak, the desyncs (same if I don't hope anymore about this), etc...
Two months of a daily frustration by these bugs, this is tiring
i agree, wtf man, these bugs are so irritating, im now doing beta's for other games because there so irritating, fix these issues its been so damn long already...even microsoft is better than this
|
Rionus
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 06:40:00 -
[69]
Maybe CCP are going to surprise us by adding some nice changes at the last minute. Perhaps they only wrote this to avoid "market speculation" or something...
|
RaTTuS
BIG Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 09:14:00 -
[70]
I sense high whine and cheese factors in the ether...
looking forward to lots of new green text by Monday,
as I know there are lots of fixes on Sisi ...
a few things :- build numbers go up each build - so lots of build will make lots of numbers - even if the build does not fix anything
the ship | items bug is deffo fixed on sisi
the portrait server is not the same machine
long skills training scheduled -- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve & Portrait Server
|
|
Matthew
Caldari BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 09:35:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Loyal Servant I have my makefiles generate my version header that increments the version number in my code as well, but .. i would have to compile my code 3,194 times to simulate what you did... unless you guys just pick a larger number and plug it in....
Not all 3,194 build numbers will actually have been compiled into running versions. In fact, a fair number of them may be versions that are unable to compile properly. In reality, it's going to correspond to 3,194 code changes checked into their code management system. Which is entirely reasonable. When looked at this way, the build number is a unique ID for a potential build, which is very necessary when you have lots of people working on the code at the same time.
As for your makefile. Lets step through the current situation and see what you get.
You release your 1.0.1 patch, at build 45943. You then start developing the 1.1 patch, regularly compiling and unit-testing your changes. In doing this, you generate builds 45943 to 49136.
At some point during this process, you find a quick and low-risk fix to a serious issue affecting your users, that is not dependant on any other changes you have made in developing the 1.1 patch. You decide to get this fix out to your users asap, rather than have them wait another month while the much larger 1.1 patch is finished and tested.
So you take a copy of your 1.0.1 build, and make a new branch to get the 1.0.2 patch. You apply your stand-alone, low-risk fix, and compile again. Using your makefile, this would give you a build number of 45944. Which is a problem, because you already have a build 45944, containing the first changes you made between 1.0.1 and 1.1. It gets even more messy when you have 50+ people working on the code at once, potentially all making their own test compiles.
There's no reason why the release versioning and the build number need to make sense in relation to each other, because they serve two fundamentally different purposes.
Originally by: Niki Silver Two effing months of bugged Trinity and you have one fix?[/qute]
Check out sisi - they've been doing a lot more in the last two months than just this patch.
However, those changes (aka the 1.1 patch) is not ready to be deployed to TQ yet.
Unlike those changes, the one we're getting now is ready, fixes a significant problem, and can be deployed independantly of the other changes made in 1.1.
The alternative would be to leave players unable to log in, potentially for several more weeks, for no good reason.
Originally by: Wadaya I think some fixes are missing. I know for a fact the blanking out of ships/items when merged to station services has been fixed, and was just waiting to be deployed in the next patch.
CCP Lingorm was probably entirely correct when he said it. But plans can, and do, change. It seems to me that the "next patch" was planned to be 1.1, which is the patch that has the majority of upcoming fixes in it. When the log-in fix dropped on the CTO's desk, it got flagged as a priority for deployment, and the 1.0.2 patch was rolled.
The only thing you could really blame Lingorm for is being unable to see into the future. Which I think would be a bit harsh, even for Eve ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 16:27:00 -
[72]
I wish all the nifty changes like the overview tabs, EW icons, etc were in this patch.
|
Bridget Mery
Brannigan's Law
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 20:08:00 -
[73]
Thanks for getting all the incredibly annoying UI issues that Trinity created fixed... oh wait.
|
Four Degrees
Caldari DEEP FRIED RAT Phobos Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 20:20:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Loyal Servant In other words, a lot of people don't buy this 'we fixed the login screen' and we increased the build version by 3,194 just for that. I don't, and this is what I do for a living.
You do realise that 1.1 is in development and that CCP will constantly be coding?
As they are coding 1.1 and each change or build is assigned a number, whether or not it is actually used and then this login screen problem comes up, the fix is created from the current build of the client and assigned a unique number in relation to the development of 1.1.
To make it simpler: Assume Trinity 1.0 is build #0001 (for talkings sake), 1.01 is #0243 and 1.02 is #7340 and 1.1 is released with #8123.
Just because the jump from 1.01 to 1.02 is over 7000 (Not 9-thoosand, sorry) doesn't mean that the build numbers correspond to the development of 1.02.
Stop being so paranoid, you'd think for someone who is familiar with the concept would be less skeptical. I'd like to hope that this would stop fueling the paranoia, but that'd be a little too foolhardy.
There will probably be a few more changes added into the notes but hardly an 'OMGADZ, the skeez is falinz' type thing. The quicker this is sorted and out the way, the quicker 1.1 will grace the news.
|
Yaay
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 00:06:00 -
[75]
I think you guys are taking this whole fix the game before adding content thing a bit to far :-P
On the up side, there few who can complain about the content/fix ratio this time. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619019IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID |
Leonidas Nabal
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 03:48:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Leonidas Nabal on 16/02/2008 03:48:10 I'm still learning to program but if every time I changed some simple part of code to track down a bug I'd probably have about 50 builds for something as simple as this. Stop being so paranoid though it does seem fishy that they are doing a server side update for a client side patch...
|
Areale
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 07:42:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Katana Seiko Three hours for a patch of that size? You have to be kidding!
No they are deploying the patch from Jita...
|
Sylthi
Minmatar Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 08:31:00 -
[78]
I have to admit, this one takes the cake. I have become acceptant of (but not comfortable with) the symmetry of CCP's Neolithic incompetence when it comes to patch deployment over the past 4 1/2 years. But, this one, I have to admit, will go down in legend.
Build 45943 to 49137 and a fairly standard 3 hours to deploy one fix? Frankly I find it downright insulting that they think the majority of the community is stupid enough to swallow that one.
Or, rather, the devs BETTER be lying to us about the extent of this patch to cover up stealth nerfs and silently upgraded security features. If not, I will be simply dumbfounded at the devs ability to sink to a new low level of my previously mentioned "Neolithic incompetence." Wait...... I have to take that back, now that I think of it. That term is incorrect of me technically. It will no longer technically fall under the term "incompetence" IF the patch goes well. I will then have to apply the term of "legendary laziness" to the dev team for wasting MONTHS since Trinity and only coming up with one fix.
So, to be honest, I am now actually very curious as to which of the three it is. What do you all think?
Option 1: They are directly insulting our intelligence by expecting us to believe an obvious lie.
Option 2: It is a continuation of their "Neolithic incompetence" through the fact that in ALL of the time since trinity they have only gotten ONE of the MANY elements they tried to work well enough to go live.
Option 3: They have strove for a new adjective in "legendary laziness" through the fact that they have only actually WORKED on one element to go live in the past months.
Perhaps it is something else I haven't thought of. Something darker and more abysmal, and a stronger example of outright theft of our subscription money. Time will tell I suppose.....
To the people that were suffering from this bug (not me) I am glad you guys are getting fixed. But, no matter how you look at it, this patch is an example of how poorly CCP treats/thinks of the community paying their salaries. If they are telling the truth, and this is the only thing getting fixed; I have to ask: Why did such a critical bug for some of the users take months to fix? Then there are the questions I implied above.
No matter what way you look at this, its a poor showing CCP.
Unless, and this is a BIG "unless"; this patch is in preparation for the anticipated "boost patch" to be released in a VERY short time after they are done with this. But, my years of poor service experience from CCP tells me to doubt that very much.....
CCP, you aren't going to be able to depend on being the ONLY decent sci-fi starship MMO on the net to save you for much longer. There are some very exciting titles due out this year in this same genre. Time to get your act together if you want to forestall a mass player exodus....
*
* |
PsiStorm
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 11:19:00 -
[79]
Edited by: PsiStorm on 16/02/2008 11:19:46 Guys, it's very obvious that there is more than meets the eye. CCP has a policy now not to make known certain updates that will affect the game itself. (remember how no one knew smartbombs were allowed in high sec without concord intervention? And the day the patch notes became available ppl were just letting off smartbombs in between miners and the like?). I for one have learnt to just wait and see. Relax ppl, and if the patch is deployed and there really is only 1 update, THEN go on the war path. But until then, lets all just enjoy the ride.
This is just my view on the matter.
|
Falkrich Swifthand
Caldari eNinjas Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 13:42:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Falkrich Swifthand on 16/02/2008 13:44:38 Edited by: Falkrich Swifthand on 16/02/2008 13:42:56
Originally by: Sylthi Build 45943 to 49137 and a fairly standard (for patch DTs) 3 hours to deploy one fix? Frankly I find it downright insulting that they think the majority of the community is stupid enough to swallow that one.
As has been said REPEATEDLY it's not a build number, it's a source control "revision". The Tranquility (main server) and Singularity (test server) code is in the same source control system (it makes merging changes MUCH easier), so they share the same revision numbers. The current Singularity build is revision 49002, and it's not unreasonable to assume that most of the changes between revisions 45943 to 49136 are changes in the Trinity 1.1 version, WHICH THEY ARE NOT RELEASING YET. Revision 49137 is a one-off change to the "Stable" branch, not over 3000 changes.
The "three hours" thing is likely because if they estimated any less and something went wrong in the patch deployment people would ***** and moan. Best to get the moaning out of the way now
nullnull
My sig is not my sig. |
|
Sylthi
Minmatar Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 14:16:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Sylthi on 16/02/2008 14:23:53
Originally by: Falkrich Swifthand Edited by: Falkrich Swifthand on 16/02/2008 13:44:38 Edited by: Falkrich Swifthand on 16/02/2008 13:42:56
Originally by: Sylthi Build 45943 to 49137 and a fairly standard (for patch DTs) 3 hours to deploy one fix? Frankly I find it downright insulting that they think the majority of the community is stupid enough to swallow that one.
As has been said REPEATEDLY it's not a build number, it's a source control "revision". The Tranquility (main server) and Singularity (test server) code is in the same source control system (it makes merging changes MUCH easier), so they share the same revision numbers. The current Singularity build is revision 49002, and it's not unreasonable to assume that most of the changes between revisions 45943 to 49136 are changes in the Trinity 1.1 version, WHICH THEY ARE NOT RELEASING YET. Revision 49137 is a one-off change to the "Stable" branch, not over 3000 chages.
Uh-huh. Ok. Whatever. Thanks for the explanation. I still believed most of what they told us when I had been in the game for less than two years like you too. If what you say is accurate, they use very different way of tracking their versions than I was taught in school as a CIS major. But, that is neither here nor there. I still don't buy what they are shoveling. You won't either when you've been in game for almost 5 years. Or are you not posting with your main like you should?
Oh, and in answer to one of your changing sigs, "YES" when someone comes out with something better than CCP is producing (which won't be long at this rate), you CAN have my stuff; because I won't be back. Cheers. Going on RL vacation now, so flame away, won't be back to read it.
*
* |
Four Degrees
Caldari DEEP FRIED RAT Phobos Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 14:39:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Sylthi Edited by: Sylthi on 16/02/2008 09:27:19 Rabble, rabble.
Glad to hear, means I don't have to come up with a reply to that drivel.
Anyway, as has been said many-a-time the build numbers aren't individual numbers for every conspiracy behind the curtains.
As for moaning about the single fix, it's pretty clear that people not being able to log in is a pretty pressing concern, hence why it's being dealt with now and the rest of the actual fixes will be applied with 1.1, how it has always been.
|
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 14:58:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Jim Outright and.. the build number jumps an illogically high number of places for such a simple patch..
We develop in multiple parallel code branches at the same time. Currently Trinity 1.0.2 is on the live branch, the upcoming Trinity 1.1 is on the staging branch and our next expansion EVE Online ***** is on the main branch. All code changes go into the same source code management system and are numbered sequentially.
The build number of the release when it's released to TQ is the highest change list number on the live branch at the time of release. Usually that change list is when we digitally sign all binaries before release.
Given all the development we have done since Trinity 1.0.1, in particular the work on Trinity 1.1, it's quite normal that the release build numbers jump substantially between Trinity 1.0.1 and 1.0.2.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
Essack Leadae
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 15:33:00 -
[84]
Maybe that CCP don't want release the patch for all annoying bugs to reduce the repellent effect of Trinity 1.1.
Compensate the frustration of the next stupid incoming nerfs by the correction of bugs...
|
Josef Amerentev
Gallente E.M.P. Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 20:07:00 -
[85]
what??? u are working on some amazing new expansion and u dont tell what its called?
side note: any idea when trinity 1.1 is going to tq?
|
Sylthi
Minmatar Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 00:58:00 -
[86]
Thank you for a more complete explanation of how the versions are numbered and why Explorer. It explains a little of what goes on behind the curtain. I look forward to a bug free client, and spotless patch releases, in the very near future.
*
* |
Four Degrees
Caldari DEEP FRIED RAT Phobos Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 13:39:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Josef Amerentev what??? u are working on some amazing new expansion and u dont tell what its called?
side note: any idea when trinity 1.1 is going to tq?
Ambulation is in development and no doubt there's no official set-in-stone name for it. Look what happened to Rev 3.
Glad to have some official explanation, here's hoping the patch day doesn't last the full estimated time.
|
Aerilis
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 16:25:00 -
[88]
best. patch. EVAR!
|
Zyrus Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 18:48:00 -
[89]
I am sorry, but this is obviously NOT true. I was on Singularity a few days ago and I detected one obvious change: There was a tab in the Overview so that you could faster switch between your overview settings! That maybe no bugfix, but a new feature... but it is an obvious change! Are there more of these changes?
|
Alexi Promius
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 20:11:00 -
[90]
i could be way off but couldn't it have something to do with changes in preparation from steam deployment? I thought I remembered the Steam release date for eve being in february with no date set. Thats just my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |