Jarno Mikkola Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Is there a repository of SCS patches anywhere besides BWFixpack? Well... Link to comment
Mike1072 Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 DavidW gave permission to host his stuff on GitHub, so I could create a repository for it. The tricky thing about maintaining SCS is that parts of it are quite complicated and nobody understands the code as well as DavidW, so there's a bigger risk of including bad fixes. Link to comment
Cahir Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Mike does it mean DavidW is not planning to go back to SCS at all? Link to comment
Mike1072 Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Mike does it mean DavidW is not planning to go back to SCS at all? I haven't heard that, but I know he is very busy right now. Link to comment
Fiann of the Silver Hand Posted April 30, 2016 Share Posted April 30, 2016 Well, that's a damn shame, that is. Link to comment
Jarno Mikkola Posted April 30, 2016 Author Share Posted April 30, 2016 but I know he is very busy right now.Is this a known thing or a known thing ? Aka from the past experience or from knowing what he is doing from around the net/his work place ? Cause I agree that it's very much the first, but I can't say the later ... as I don't have a clue about the later, cause I forgot the details I have read of him in the past. And it's probably better for him that you do not re-reveal those facts. Link to comment
subtledoctor Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 DavidW gave permission to host his stuff on GitHub, so I could create a repository for it. The tricky thing about maintaining SCS is that parts of it are quite complicated and nobody understands the code as well as DavidW, so there's a bigger risk of including bad fixes. If it goes up on github we could create a fork with the hotfixes; but it would remain separate from the official release unless/until someone vets it properly. That way, any problem with the fixes introduced by others would not infect the official version. Assuming that kind of thing is alright with David, of course. Link to comment
AstroBryGuy Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 but I know he is very busy right now.Is this a known thing or a known thing ? Aka from the past experience or from knowing what he is doing from around the net/his work place ? Cause I agree that it's very much the first, but I can't say the later ... as I don't have a clue about the later, cause I forgot the details I have read of him in the past. And it's probably better for him that you do not re-reveal those facts. IIRC, he is moving across an ocean this summer (leave it vaguely at that). I think that qualifies as very busy. Link to comment
kreso Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Assuming that kind of thing is alright with David, of course. Iirc, he stated several times he has no objections on 3rd party fixes to his mod while he's apsent, so it's fine. You can put a link in a seperate topic with instructions for use. Link to comment
subtledoctor Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Assuming that kind of thing is alright with David, of course.Iirc, he stated several times he has no objections on 3rd party fixes to his mod while he's apsent, so it's fine. You can put a link in a seperate topic with instructions for use. I've already posted a few fixes with relatively simple directions. But lots of people are just missing it. What I mean was, I recall hearing that David does not want someone to *incorporate* fixes into the main SCS mod and then host the whole thing as an *alternative* download. Which is quite reasonable. But, if the main mod was on GitHub then we could make a fork, and the main mod would be untouched. Players could download and use the forked version if necessary, without extra steps to add hotfixes; and David could inspect and compare the code and incorporate it whenever he gets around to it. Could be the best of both worlds. Link to comment
Mike1072 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Different versions of a codebase can be preserved using branches if needed. I'm not a fan of creating a fork to host new updates. I think it would be better to follow the usual policy that revolves around pulling changes into the main G3 repository, where a maintainer can approve them and release downloads for players. The current version of the mod would remain available and one with these contributions would probably just be released as a beta version. Link to comment
subtledoctor Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 I don't mind the technical details; it's just a matter of who does the work and maintains stuff. I just think that, from players'/newbies' point of view, it's easier to be pointed to a beta build that has been tested to work with BG2EE v2.3 (or whatever) - rather than being pointed to just the official build, plus a group of hotfixes that need to be applied before installing, plus some fixes to be applied after installing, etc. etc. I've been getting lots of credit around the various forums for providing a hotfix for installation on 2.0+... https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/732385/#Comment_732385 That's credit I probably don't deserve, since I surely had lots of help figuring it out. Feel free to fold those fixes into a beta build, or do whatever you want with them... then it can be known as "SCS 31 beta" rather than "SCS 30 with Subtledoctor's hotfixes" Link to comment
kreso Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 There are more fixes for SCS at No-Reload thread, I don't know if it's relevant for EEs. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.