<div>Problem is, people would probably leak it etc, and its then outside of Ryans hands. It's not really a viable option imo.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/23/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andre Lorbach</b> <<a href="mailto:alorbach@ro1.adiscon.com">alorbach@ro1.adiscon.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I don't understand their policy to develop and test it in a private beta<br>environment.<br>If Ryan would just be allowed to run a beta program on his own with us,
<br>we all would happily test and ryan could find and fix the bugs much<br>faster as now. And once the beta is stable enough, it could be added to<br>the official download site.<br><br>There is no good reason to do it this way, except if you want to piss
<br>off the server admins ;)<br><br>--<br>deltaray<br><br>>> Cod Mailinglist <<<br>- List-Post: <mailto:<a href="mailto:cod@icculus.org">cod@icculus.org</a>> -<br>- List-Help: <mailto:<a href="mailto:cod-help@icculus.org">
cod-help@icculus.org</a>> -<br>- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:<a href="mailto:cod-unsubscribe@icculus.org">cod-unsubscribe@icculus.org</a>> -<br>- List-Subscribe: <mailto:<a href="mailto:cod-subscribe@icculus.org">
cod-subscribe@icculus.org</a>> -<br><br><br><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: <a href="mailto:rmount@gmail.com">rmount@gmail.com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:rmount@gmail.com">rmount@gmail.com</a>] On Behalf Of
<br>> Robert Mount<br>> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:47 PM<br>> To: <a href="mailto:cod@icculus.org">cod@icculus.org</a><br>> Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch<br>><br>> Have you read Ryan's website at all? I think you'd be hard
<br>> pressed to find a Windows system around ;-)<br>><br>> In all seriousness, Ryan is one person. Activision probably<br>> sets this up in their lab where they can get any number of<br>> systems to connect to it.
<br>><br>> Speculating about what the show-stopper was at this point is futile.<br>> Based on the fact that it was called a "show-stopper" leads<br>> me to believe that more than<br>><br>> On 6/22/06,
<a href="mailto:colin@bell-pc.com">colin@bell-pc.com</a> <<a href="mailto:colin@bell-pc.com">colin@bell-pc.com</a>> wrote:<br>> > Hmm i seriously doubt that the patch that Ryan submitted to AV for<br>> > approval was kicking clients within 10 secs. Do u think he doesnt
<br>> > check the thing himself ? .<br>> > Probably a minor bug that most clients wouldnt even have<br>> noticed. Give<br>> > the guy some credit<br>> ><br>> > Most clients that play the game at all have upgraded to
1.3<br>> and so it<br>> > is now impossible for them to connect to a Linux server running 1.2<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > ----- Original Message -----<br>> > From: "Stierenoog" <<a href="mailto:stierenoog@silverbulletclan.nl">
stierenoog@silverbulletclan.nl</a>><br>> > To: <<a href="mailto:cod@icculus.org">cod@icculus.org</a>><br>> > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:06 PM<br>> > Subject: Re: [cod] 1.3 patch<br>> >
<br>> ><br>> > > So you prefer a 1.3 server kicking people within 10 seconds i.e.<br>> > > over a<br>> > > 1.2 server that can be used to play normal on?<br>> > > I don't quite follow you. Just relax the binaries will be
<br>> released<br>> > > soon, just have some patience.<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > <a href="mailto:colin@bell-pc.com">colin@bell-pc.com</a> wrote:<br>> > >> Why doesnt someone just leak the the
1.3 linux patch so<br>> we can get<br>> > >> on with upgrading our servers. Seems to me that that 99% of the<br>> > >> linux server providers out there would prefer this than<br>> having to<br>
> > >> hang around waiting with empty servers.<br>> > >><br>> > >> I know a few have commented that we dont need another 1.2a b, c,<br>> > >> etc. but something that would allow
1.3 patched clients<br>> to at least<br>> > >> join the server would be a whole lot better than sweet<br>> fanny adams.<br>> > >><br>> > >><br>> > >><br>> > >>
<br>> > >><br>> > >><br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > --<br>> > > No virus found in this incoming message.<br>> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.<br>> > > Version:
7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.2/372 - Release Date:<br>> > > 21/06/2006<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> ><br>> ><br>><br></blockquote></div><br>