Novacain wrote:My suggestion is somewhat of a hybrid. If there are major changes, then break it. they should be seperate. however, if the versions are close enough, there should be some compatability, ie. 4.7 is compatible with 4.9, but 5.0 isn't compatable with either. I say, add some compatability support for a couple versions back, but certainly not full support. I know it took a while for me to "upgrade" to 4.9 because of all the errors that were reported with it. I then decided to give it a whirl (because 4.8 wasn't available) when I upgraded my OS.
However, some compatability check should be used. it could also stop all the buildcraft users from clogging up servers that they can't enter.
rubenwardy wrote:If you do it, do it right.
Don't do a bad job just to save compatibility.
BrandonReese wrote:It's beta software we should have some expectation that things might change drastically and break some compatibility. It's not very difficult to update your client so I wouldn't worry about backward compatibility.
Novacain wrote:BrandonReese wrote:It's beta software we should have some expectation that things might change drastically and break some compatibility. It's not very difficult to update your client so I wouldn't worry about backward compatibility.
don't forget that a realease isn't always on all OS's at the same time.
Novacain wrote:BrandonReese wrote:It's beta software we should have some expectation that things might change drastically and break some compatibility. It's not very difficult to update your client so I wouldn't worry about backward compatibility.
don't forget that a realease isn't always on all OS's at the same time.
BrandonReese wrote:Novacain wrote:BrandonReese wrote:It's beta software we should have some expectation that things might change drastically and break some compatibility. It's not very difficult to update your client so I wouldn't worry about backward compatibility.
don't forget that a realease isn't always on all OS's at the same time.
I'm pretty sure when it's the next "stable" release it's available on all OS's when it's first announced.
hoodedice wrote:Just compile it yourself.
Novacain wrote:Not everyone knows how to compile the source code
onpon4 wrote:Novacain wrote:Not everyone knows how to compile the source code
Everyone ought to learn how to look at the readme and follow directions. Honestly, it's not that hard to compile C++ code that is distributed with makefile generator scripts, supports cmake, etc (unless you're on Windows).
rubenwardy wrote:If you do it, do it right.
Don't do a bad job just to save compatibility.
onpon4 wrote:Novacain wrote:Not everyone knows how to compile the source code
Everyone ought to learn how to look at the readme and follow directions. Honestly, it's not that hard to compile C++ code that is distributed with makefile generator scripts, supports cmake, etc (unless you're on Windows).
twoelk wrote:So only those that know how to compile, know how to get all the needed resources and have acces to a device this can be done on should be allowed to play Minetest?
What a stupid statement!
"shoo shoo little kid go away 'cause you can barely read let alone code and anyways you don't own a proper pc so go play some other voxel sandbox game" . . . is that what you are saying onpon4?
onpon4 wrote:twoelk wrote:So only those that know how to compile, know how to get all the needed resources and have acces to a device this can be done on should be allowed to play Minetest?
What a stupid statement!
"shoo shoo little kid go away 'cause you can barely read let alone code and anyways you don't own a proper pc so go play some other voxel sandbox game" . . . is that what you are saying onpon4?
No. You're exaggerating both what I said and the difficulty of compiling a program.
Compiling a program that gives you instructions to do so doesn't require programming knowledge. It just requires you to be able to follow directions and do a web search if you get stuck. This is a very basic skill. No programming knowledge is required to find out from a readme that you compile a program with "./configure" and "make".
It's OK to get confused by the process; that's why you search and ask questions. Maybe you're confused by the error about SDL being missing and don't realize you need the "dev" or "devel" package, and that's fine. But you're talking about compiling as if it were some mysterious process that only skilled programmers can do, and that's not true at all unless the documentation is horrid or non-existent, or you're doing it on Windows (documentation for compiling generally assumes a POSIX system, and using things that provide a POSIX environment on Windows isn't particularly straightforward).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests