[bf1942] v.103 Announcement
ScratchMonkey at MatureAsskickers.net
Sun Jul 24 13:28:57 EDT 2005
--On Monday, July 25, 2005 5:07 AM +1200 Michael Davies
<michaeldavies at hereisasite.co.nz> wrote:
> I don't get it... Two weeks ago after the release of the 1.02 patch
> everybody started bagging EA for their lack of testing and rushing the
> patch out. Now, people are saying 'scale it down and release it more
I think you missed the part where they sit on a patch claiming to test it,
then release it broken. My request was that they just skip the testing
part, because it's not working for *them* to test it, and it just slows
down the process.
We're already told that the server is "unsupported", so what difference
does it make if it doesn't get "tested" by their QA?
Note that I don't suggest this for clients. Only for compatible server
changes (ie. those that don't change the wire protocol or otherwise require
a client change). Because older releases remain compatible, admins don't
have to install the bleeding edge. They can forgo the latest fixes, just
like "Enterprise" Linux admins can stay with very old versions in the name
of stability, and wait for officially blessed releases. I personally don't
believe in "blessed" releases and if I want to be stable, I'll just load
what's been in the wild for a few days and demonstrated its stability in
real world situations. And if I have spare capacity, I can load the
bleeding edge on a test server.
The client browser needs to clearly indicate the server version, and the
user base needs to be informed that the client can work with multiple
server versions, as works in UT2004.
Now maybe we need an admin IQ test to get to the beta download page, to
keep out admins with no ability to do basic debugging.
More information about the Bf1942