[bf1942] v.103 Announcement

kama kama at pvp.se
Mon Jul 25 06:57:46 EDT 2005

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005, Michael Davies 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 often'?
> If you're determined to be angry at EA for something, which seems futile in
> the first place, at least make up your mind what you're going to be angry
> about.

Ofcourse we can criticize a faulty release. They are supposed to have a QA
department. And releasing such new bugs is a proof of a nonfunctional QA.

> I guarantee that if EA did start releasing bugfixes as you suggest Kama (and
> it does seem a reasonable idea) server operators would get angry and
> complain because there were too many patches to keep up with and someone
> would find at least one bug to write home about. (Oh and don't forget about
> the actual players either)

I don't think so. Let me clarify this.

A development should always have two source branches, a production and a
development branch. All development take place in the dev-branch. (DICE
probably already work this way)

If someone finds a bug, if its DICE or the community doesnt matter, that
not requiring a client and server upgrade it will be labeled minor and are
ported back, if possible, to the production branch from the development
branch. A minor patch is then released as soon as the build is ready. It
will probably only include a .so/dll file. Serveradmins is not required to
upgrade their servers, but can if they will.

A mayor patch will include a upgrade on both client and server. If someone
doesnt upgrade they will not be able to play.

If you go for a release pattern of each tuesday. You should include all
the files that have minor patches in them into that weekly patch. So
server admins can upgrade it once a week. This doesnt mean it needs to be
a mayor patch and can be ignored by the serveradmin if she wants.

If there is some problem with an minor release, you could as an admin make
a rollback. A simple script from DICE should make it easy to rollback a

When they want to include new features into the game. Like say a new map.
It should be labeled as a release and not a patch.

What EA/DICE are doing now is not really releasing patches, they are
releasing new releases. And if they continue to only release releases, we
are entitled to be criticize their work. Even Microsoft are releasing
patches and when the time seems fit, they bundle they patches into a

For clarification a version is normally written:
<version>.<release>.<patch/build>   2.4.67
<version>.<release> <patch/build>   1.02 3498
<version>.<release>p<patch/build>   5.4p17

(there are more than these, but I think these are the most common)

I think, in contrary to you obviously, that serveradmins will be more
happy if they are able to get a fix to a problem really fast. I rather
patch my server twice aday, than wait 1.5 month to get the problems fixed
by a full release. After a while the product will mature and we will see
less patches.

> >From EA's perspective, it becomes a loose-loose situation and once they
> realize they can't please the increasingly angry mobs outside it becomes a
> bit futile for them also. So give EA a break I reckon, they do pretty well
> considering they're bound to get shot at no matter what they do.

No, I would rather applaud them if they start releasing real patches
instead of these releases. And I will continue to criticize anything I
dont seem to be correct. If you dont criticize someones products or work,
they will never evolve.


More information about the Bf1942 mailing list