[cod] 1.3 patch

admin at pbbans.de admin at pbbans.de
Fri Jun 23 10:54:22 EDT 2006


thats the right: cod-unsubscribe at icculus.org



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alex Machado" <amach64 at optonline.net>
To: <cod at icculus.org>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:54 PM
Subject: RE: [cod] 1.3 patch


Send an email to unsubscribe at icculus.org        That doe not work

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Machado [mailto:amach64 at optonline.net]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:17 AM
To: cod at icculus.org
Subject: RE: [cod] 1.3 patch

Thanks


-----Original Message-----
From: Michelle E [mailto:michelle_s4f at hotmail.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 9:01 AM
To: cod at icculus.org
Subject: RE: [cod] 1.3 patch

Send an email to unsubscribe at icculus.org


>From: Alex Machado <amach64 at optonline.net>
>Reply-To: cod at icculus.org
>To: cod at icculus.org
>Subject: RE: [cod] 1.3 patch
>Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:08:00 -0400
>
>I forgot.....how do I get off this mailing list again?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Landi [mailto:jim at landi.net]
>Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 8:48 AM
>To: cod at icculus.org
>Subject: RE: [cod] 1.3 patch
>
>The reason is, IW is trying to save face because for what ever reason it
>took so long for so little, not to mention they wont even fix the sum miss
>match issue.
>
>  If they had waited and tested everything together and released the whole
>package at the same time there would be more outcry the just us server
>admins.
>
>I'm almost sure we wont have to worry about it after we get the 1.3 patch
>for Linux, as I truly feel we wont be getting any more fixes for a game
>they
>care nothing about.
>
>When I say they, I mean the upper management who continue to sabotage all
>the hard work guys like Brian, Ryan and the rest of the developers who work
>their butts off and truly love this game.
>
>-Jim
>Rudedog
>FPSadmin.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: claus at gamehotel.dk [mailto:claus at gamehotel.dk]
>Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 4:40 AM
>To: cod at icculus.org
>Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch
>
>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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview




More information about the Cod mailing list