wesnoth 1.4

[Jon Ciesla]

> Warren Togami <wtogami at ...> writes:
>> I am personally disappointed that we would avoid upgrading wesnoth in
>> order to maintain saved game compatibility.  I believe that maintaining
>> the ability to play on the network is more important.
>
> There are still servers for 1.2, and in fact you automatically get
> redirected
> to one when you try connecting to the default server with a 1.2.x version.
> (I
> tried it a few hours ago.) There are few people on it, that's sure. But
> the
> server does exist.
>
>> 1) What about security maintenance?  A security hole could be found in
>> 1.2.8 either client or server.  Will upstream continue to maintain that
>> version?  If so, for how long?
>
> That's a good question. On the other hand, security fixes can be
> backported,
> and there might even be other people (e.g. Debian) doing the work for us.
>
>> 2) It was suggested in the bodhi ticket that users of older
>> distributions should use a manual 3rd party repository in order to
>> obtain a newer save-game incompatible version of wesnoth.  This method
>> seems undesirable to me for a number of additional reasons (guaranteeing
>> that users of this repo actually get updates, security considerations).
>
> To me, it looks like the best solution. There are arguments both for
> upgrading
> to 1.4 and for keeping 1.2. If there's a repository on e.g.
> fedorapeople.org
> with 1.4, it allows users to make an informed choice.
>
> And of course, there's also the option to upgrade to Fedora 9 which is
> around
> the corner, though that may be undesirable for other reasons, which is the
> point of a backport repository.
>
>> 3) Keeping Fedora versions on older wesnoth releases might be less of a
>> problem due to the only ~13 month lifecycle.  But what about wesnoth in
>> EPEL?  Big can of worms.
>
> You have to be even more careful with upgrading things in EPEL. People who
> use
> an enterprise distribution really don't want the software to break things
> under
> them.
>
>> 4) Downloadable content (maps, campaigns, etc.) for the older version
>> became abandoned and more scarce as 1.4.x supplanted 1.2.x.  New wesnoth
>> users in the coming months will be increasingly frustrated that content
>> they see on the websites/forums do not match what is available/usable in
>> Fedora.  This increases the perception that Fedora is not properly
>> maintaining wesnoth, and perhaps you want to use another distro instead.
>
> On the other hand, there's a lot of existing content for 1.2 which users
> may
> have already downloaded and which will break with the upgrade. Not only
> the
> savegames are backwards-incompatible, but also all the downloaded content.
> And
> there isn't even always a 1.4 version available (and even if that was the
> case,
> redownloading dozens of addons is a PITA).
>
>> There are a number of difficult drawbacks and hoops we have to jump
>> through if we refuse to upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable as a matter
>> of policy.  Is this refusal worth these many drawbacks?
>
> This isn't just a matter of policy. Breaking savegames in an update to a
> stable
> distribution isn't something to be taken lightly. Sure, if you primarily
> play
> multiplayer, you'll want to always have the latest version because that's
> what
> most people on the multiplayer servers will be running, but if you
> primarily
> play campaigns, you really don't want an automated upgrade breaking all
> your
> savegames and all the third-party campaigns you had installed! Campaigns
> are
> something you can be playing for weeks. Wesnoth isn't just a multiplayer
> client!
>
>> Perhaps we should upgrade wesnoth to the latest stable, and provide the
>> current older version *somewhere else* unsupported in case people want
>> to play their older save games.  The release notes of the update and
>> elsewhere (wesnoth.org and fedora wiki) can mention how to downgrade and
>> avoid yum upgrades.
>
> Upgrading by default and providing the older version elsewhere is only
> feasible
> if they can be installed in parallel and if the new version is changed to
> use a
> versioned data directory so the existing savefiles will work with the
> compat
> package. Or at the very least the older version provided elsewhere has to
> use a
> higher Epoch than the official package, but IMHO that's an ugly hack.
>
> You can't really expect end users to:
> 1. manually downgrade a package and
> 2. manually exclude the package from upgrades.
>
>> I realize this is a balancing act, but the reasons against upgrading are
>> in the minority compared to the benefits both short and long-term.
>
> I disagree, for reasons explained above (Wesnoth isn't only networked
> multiplayer).
>
> I'm usually in favor of upgrading applications to the latest versions (I
> like
> how Fedora usually does that) unless there's a good reason not to, but
> IMHO
> game upgrades which break savegame compatibility are such a good reason,
> and in
> this case, there's also the issue of downloadable content. It's not like
> Fedora
> 9 is so far away.

I've been asked by multiple parties off-list in the past weeks, including
Warren, to upgrade F-8 to 1.4.  Warren has also asked for F-7.  I also
feel that F-9 is not far off (though now moreso).  As a former SimCity
2000 player with a city over 5 million people, I understand the value of
saved games.  I see from poking around that upstream intends to break
savegame compatibility again for 1.6, though possibly for the last time.

There really is no good answer here.  I, like Warren, love that Fedora is
usually the (b)leading edge of FLOSS software, especially games.  I also,
like Kevin, loathe the idea of breaking anything for users without a
really compelling reason.  I've found no way to convert a 1.2 save to a
1.4 save, and it sounds like in the larger group of Wesnoth players,
inside and outside of Fedora, there is equal division between those
wanting to keep compatibility and those wanting to move forward.

I've been mulling over the best way to handle this in the last few days,
and I'm leaning toward a repo on fp.o for 1.4 for F-8.  I can take the
koji builds for F-8, create a repo and an rpm for it, rsync it to fp.o,
and place a link to the whole business to my wiki page and send something
to f-announce.

A bad solution, but, I think, the one most satisfying whilst endangering
the fewest kittens.

Thoughts?

>         Kevin Kofler
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fedora-games-list mailing list
> Fedora-games-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-games-list
>


-- 
novus ordo absurdum