[cod] 1.3 patch

[claus at gamehotel.dk]

Fully agree with Ian Mu who states an absolute simple and basal point wich would have created
complete otherwise than a totally disaster release.

It should just not be an option to release a "half patch" like that - full patch or no patch -
thats a real option.

This incident has leaded to a destruction of the future for COD2 in our firm.

Our last server are soon to be forced closed by us, and wont be up again - CoD2 is off our product
list - there will have to be a surprisingly and unexpected rise in demand before we will bring back
CoD2 in our product line - and even there we will be full with dare by doing it - and certantly not
before a complete succesfull future release has completed once more - if not for updates then for
the proof of future stabil release proces.

In other words, we wont tuch it before we are proven it can be done the right way!

Clearly such a release proces failure could and should be used positively as this year's "most to
be learned from incident" - this truly should have be done otherwise.

Regards

Claus Jørgensen
gamehotel

----- Original Message -----
From: Ian mu
To:  cod at icculus.org
Sent:  Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:51:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch

Problem is, people would probably leak it etc, and its then outside of Ryans
hands. It's not really a viable option imo.

Realistically there is only one sensible solution, Windows and Linux patches
should not only be released at the same, but just as importantly should be
tested together. There's no point releasing a Windows patch that later a
Linux version could find a hole in. Windows clients needed to be tested on
Windows and Linux servers before they hit the public together. It's still
amazing this basic process doesn't sink in to them.


On 6/23/06, Andre Lorbach <alorbach at ro1.adiscon.com> wrote:
>
> I don't understand their policy to develop and test it in a private beta
> environment.
> If Ryan would just be allowed to run a beta program on his own with us,
> we all would happily test and ryan could find and fix the bugs much
> faster as now. And once the beta is stable enough, it could be added to
> the official download site.
>
> There is no good reason to do it this way, except if you want to piss
> off the server admins ;)
>
> --
> deltaray
>
> >> Cod Mailinglist <<
> - List-Post: <mailto:cod at icculus.org> -
> - List-Help: <mailto:cod-help at icculus.org> -
> - List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cod-unsubscribe at icculus.org> -
> - List-Subscribe: <mailto:cod-subscribe at icculus.org> -
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rmount at gmail.com [mailto:rmount at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > Robert Mount
> > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:47 PM
> > To: cod at icculus.org
> > Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch
> >
> > Have you read Ryan's website at all?  I think you'd be hard
> > pressed to find a Windows system around ;-)
> >
> > In all seriousness, Ryan is one person.  Activision probably
> > sets this up in their lab where they can get any number of
> > systems to connect to it.
> >
> > Speculating about what the show-stopper was at this point is futile.
> > Based on the fact that it was called a "show-stopper" leads
> > me to believe that more than
> >
> > On 6/22/06, colin at bell-pc.com <colin at bell-pc.com> wrote:
> > > Hmm i seriously doubt that the patch that Ryan submitted to AV for
> > > approval was kicking clients within 10 secs. Do u think he doesnt
> > > check the thing himself ? .
> > > Probably a minor bug that most clients wouldnt even have
> > noticed. Give
> > > the guy some credit
> > >
> > > Most clients that play the game at all have upgraded to 1.3
> > and so it
> > > is now impossible for them to connect to a Linux server running 1.2
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Stierenoog" <stierenoog at silverbulletclan.nl>
> > > To: <cod at icculus.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch
> > >
> > >
> > > > So you prefer a 1.3 server kicking people within 10 seconds i.e.
> > > > over a
> > > > 1.2 server that can be used to play normal on?
> > > > I don't quite follow you. Just relax the binaries will be
> > released
> > > > soon, just have some patience.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > colin at bell-pc.com wrote:
> > > >> Why doesnt someone just leak the the 1.3 linux patch so
> > we can get
> > > >> on with upgrading our servers. Seems to me that that 99% of the
> > > >> linux server providers out there would prefer this than
> > having to
> > > >> hang around waiting with empty servers.
> > > >>
> > > >> I know a few have commented that we dont need another 1.2a b, c,
> > > >> etc. but something that would allow 1.3 patched clients
> > to at least
> > > >> join the server would be a whole lot better than sweet
> > fanny adams.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/372 - Release Date:
> > > > 21/06/2006
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>