Forge version 1.3.9

[Chris H.]

Tentative target release date: Friday March 1.

[Chris H.]

I want to thank the people who helped me add some "interesting to read" material to the "CHANGES.txt" file. I appreciate your efforts.

I had an idea that I wanted to express to the devs. Some of the sections of this file has a header which helps to keep things organized. Examples would be "Fixes/Features:" which contain a listing for the commit logs. And "Added the following cards:" which contain a listing for the new cards that were added.

I am thinking that we should have something similar for the first section of this file. Near the start of this file I have a section where I place a few notes for the upcoming beta build. Any ideas for a header for that section? "Release notes for this new beta:" might be acceptable or someone might come up with something that is better.

Below this section we have some generalized notes that tends to get included in each beta build as it helps to keep new users in touch with various important issues. An example would be the sentence that states that Forge should now be compatible with Java 7.

Does anyone have a suggestion for a header for the material that gets repeated in each build?

[Chris H.]

We also have a file named "README.txt". After a beta build I tend to prepare the "CHANGES.txt" file for the next beta release by removing the new notes section from "CHANGES.txt" file.

I am considering moving the best of the new notes section from the previous beta's "CHANGES.txt" file over to the "README.txt" file as this would help to keep this good stuff in circulation.

I do not want the "CHANGES.txt" file to have far too much text as nobody would read it. And that would make the beta announcement messages completely unreadable. I want to encourage people to read the announcement messages rather than skipping the
announcement portion and just clicking on the download link.

Granted, the "README.txt" file would grow in size as time passes. Then again I do not want to throw away the fine deck editor and the quest world instructions for all times.

[myk]

I think it's ok if README.txt grows -- it can basically become a Forge manual over time. What if the CHANGES.txt file had the following sections:

1. Contributors to This Release
   
   • includes devs and all users who have submitted content. I think it's important to recognize content contributors in particular, since these are the people who help grow the community most
2. New Features
   
   • blurbs on individual changes of interest
3. New Cards
4. Known Issues
   
   • only temporary issues should go here -- stuff that gets repeated all the time and is unlikely to change should probably be in README.txt, or maybe in a new FAQ.txt
5. Detailed Changelog
   
   • SVN commit log
   replace with link to http://svn.slightlymagic.net/websvn/log.php?repname=forge&path=%2Ftrunk%2F&isdir=1&sr=19599 (replacing sr=with rev num? maybe just generic http://svn.slightlymagic.net/websvn/log.php?repname=forge&path=%2Ftrunk%2F&isdir=1)

This would ensure that CHANGES.txt only includes what has truly changed. Every release, the New Features section from the previous release could be incorporated into README.txt.

[Zirbert]

Two thoughts:

1. I love the idea of including the commit logs so we can see everything that got fixed / changed. Myk's suggested sections look good, even if those of us who would read through section 5 would be in the minority.

2. I think the next beta should be released sooner rather than later, not necessarily waiting until March 1 - the Morph (and other alternate cost) casting bug in the present beta is pretty showstopping. (I assume it's been fixed in the new nightly builds, although I haven't checked...)

[friarsol]

Doesn't the changelog get posted by somewhere by default? Or does that not happen any more? If it does, we could just post the link to that so the README file doesn't get ridiculously unwieldy.

[myk]

+1 -- just linking to it would remove the need for Chris to manually update it all the time

[Zirbert]

I didn't know the changelogs were so readily available online - I thought we lost that function when the code hosting service changed way back when. Now that I see the links above, I'm not as interested in having a full changelog in Changes.txt.

I still vote for a quick release of the next Beta, though.

[Chris H.]

Should we move the list of the contributors down a few pegs and not have it listed as number 1? We contribute to Forge because we enjoy it and it is our hobby. I do not like giving the impression that we contribute as part of an egotistical need to be recognized.

I think that a few issues need to be a permanent part of the Known Issues section. Some people actually download the archive and then can not figure out that they need to use a util to extract the archive.

We can omit the changelog. I used to include it in the announcement but Rob suggested that it was not necessarily needed and I think that he was right. I will still need to inspect the changelog looking for new card names, commiters names and logs that can be copied/pasted/edited and then placed into the New Features section.

I am not sure if I will be ready to release the next beta before March 1. I am going through an insulin pump training program currently and my blood glucose levels are bouncing up and down like a pingpong ball.

[Zirbert]

I am not sure if I will be ready to release the next beta before March 1. I am going through an insulin pump training program currently and my blood glucose levels are bouncing up and down like a pingpong ball.

That is an excellent reason indeed. Don't sweat the timing on this one!

[myk]

Should we move the list of the contributors down a few pegs and not have it listed as number 1? We contribute to Forge because we enjoy it and it is our hobby. I do not like giving the impression that we contribute as part of an egotistical need to be recognized. ;)

That is true -- I was thinking more about non-devs, people who contribute decks, build worlds, help with testing, etc, but maybe you're right, it doesn't have to be right up on top.

I think that a few issues need to be a permanent part of the Known Issues section. Some people actually download the archive and then can not figure out that they need to use a util to extract the archive. :(

How about adding a small "How to install" section then? Btw, if they don't know to extract the archive, how do they get to the CHANGES.txt file? Or is this just for the forum announcement post?

I am not sure if I will be ready to release the next beta before March 1. I am going through an insulin pump training program currently and my blood glucose levels are bouncing up and down like a pingpong ball. :(

No worries : ) Take it easy

[Chris H.]

That is true -- I was thinking more about non-devs, people who contribute decks, build worlds, help with testing, etc, but maybe you're right, it doesn't have to be right up on top.

 
Yeah, I do try too add in the names of everyone but I do at times miss someone.

How about adding a small "How to install" section then? Btw, if they don't know to extract the archive, how do they get to the CHANGES.txt file? Or is this just for the forum announcement post?

 
That portion is in both places as it makes it somewhat easier for me. We also have several issues that are not part of the installation but do tend to come up often enough that this portion also serves as a mini FAQ.

I will try to work on this over the next few days and will keep the change log for a few days to give everyone a chance to think about this one section.

[Chris H.]

That is an excellent reason indeed. Don't sweat the timing on this one!

 
Thank you Zirbert, people can always update to the most recent snapshot build while they wait for the next beta.

[Max mtg]

That readme acts mostly as path notes, isn't it? If so, why not just use the format of patch notes from major products? Like http://www.wowwiki.com/Patch_5.1.0

Their structure inclues
Header 1 - Area
Header 2 - Field (that is sub-area)
Level 3 - list of changes

For Forge that may become:

1. General (the major and eye-catching changes here, even if they would stay under a different header if weren't so important)
Guild sealed mode for gatecrash is now avaliable
Deck editor now includes find-as-you-type feature

2. Cards
New Cards
58 cards were added, that is:
- Lightning bolt,
- Fireball,

Fixed scripts:
- Power sink
- Ulamog pathrizer

3. Abilities
General
* Announce step has been set up for abilities using X or multikicker
* Exceptions when casting Morph, Miracle, Dredge abilities were adressed

Encode
* Something fixed here

4. User interface
General
Controls to start variant game now correctly fit the window

5. Credits
Programming: myk, ...

Card scripting: Sloth, ...

Art:

Third-party tools/libraries:


No commit log./

[myk]

I don't think it needs to be quite that detailed -- it's not like we have CVE's to report. I'd think just listing the notable new features and new cards would be sufficient. It seems to me that the bug fixes are mainly of interest to the people who reported them, and they'll already know their status from the forums.