Campaign versioning standard... please!

[telex4]

As fun as it is to play campaigns that aren't even half completed, and then replay the first scenarios each time I retry the campaign, it'd be nice to know if user campaigns on the campaign server are complete.

At the moment, each campaign author seems to have adopted his own version number system. What would be really nice is if everyone adopted some standards so idiots like me can just play "complete" campaigns.

My proposal to kick things off would be:

1. Use the system "0.1", "0.2", "0.2.1", etc.

2. Only reach "1.0" when you have finished all of the scenarios and you're happy with them (i.e. they're playable, balanced, etc.). Continue past 1.0 to refine by all means, but don't mark a half-complete campaign as 1.0!

[turin]

As fun as it is to play campaigns that aren't even half completed, and then replay the first scenarios each time I retry the campaign, it'd be nice to know if user campaigns on the campaign server are complete.

At the moment, each campaign author seems to have adopted his own version number system. What would be really nice is if everyone adopted some standards so idiots like me can just play "complete" campaigns.

I definitely think this is a good idea. What the heck does "revision 27 mean ? (don't answer; its a rhetorical question).

My proposal to kick things off would be:

1. Use the system "0.1", "0.2", "0.2.1", etc.

2. Only reach "1.0" when you have finished all of the scenarios and you're happy with them (i.e. they're playable, balanced, etc.). Continue past 1.0 to refine by all means, but don't mark a half-complete campaign as 1.0!

this makes the most sense, but some people think it is less "accurate" or something and thus consciously rejected it in favor of somethign else...

[Eol]

Thinking as far off as Wesnoth 1.0, would go as far as to say we should have two wesnoth campaigns servers (especially since 1.0 will be 'STABLE').

The ingame 'downloand more campaigns' should default point to a stable campaign server where ONLY completed campaigns that are known to work with Wesnoth 'STABLE' (1.0 in this case) are listed. This would seem to be in the interest of a new user base just getting in with STABLE. Don't want to have them d/l broken campaigns and give up in frustation (ala a good quarter of the campaigns via wiki fail to run on 0.8.5 w/o modding (Easter Eggs for example)).

Then have another server (let save campaign-dev) that has non completed campaigns, experimental revisions to current completed campaigns, and campaigns that don't work with 1.0 (STABLE) but work with the CVSHEAD (CURRENT).

[MadMax]

revision 27 (it's up to revision 29 now) means the 29th major update to my campaign, meaning with scenario improvements or fatal bug fixes. A .1 revision ie. 28.3 means the third minor update to revision 28. Minor updates are ones with minor bug fixes or balance changes.

[turin]

revision 27 (it's up to revision 29 now) means the 29th major update to my campaign, meaning with scenario improvements or fatal bug fixes. A .1 revision ie. 28.3 means the third minor update to revision 28. Minor updates are ones with minor bug fixes or balance changes.

this does not explain why you don't want to use the normal method, which makes more sense IHMO AND, most importantly, makes the methods standard, a Good Thing (tm).

[Dave]

Yeah I think we need a standard.

IMO simply x.y.z should be the standard, where x, y, and z are integers >= 0. If x >= 1, then the campaign should have all scenarios present and completable. Users could choose to only see campaigns that are complete. The campaign server could enforce this versioning convention.

Possibly we could have some kind of 'ceritification' process, where the developers could certify campaigns as being somehow 'approved'. This would basically mean that we think the campaign is of reasonable quality, and fits in well with the Wesnoth world. Users could choose to only see certified campaigns.

David

[santi]

The revision scheme with 1.0 meaning 'scenario complete'
is one option, but note that HttT for instance took all the way to 8.4 to be scenario complete. I do not think this is a problem because whether you download user-contributed scenarios from the Wiki or the Scenario and Campaign development(various threads), you almost always have
a clear indication of whether the campaign is scenario complete or not

[telex4]

The revision scheme with 1.0 meaning 'scenario complete'
is one option, but note that HttT for instance took all the way to 8.4 to be scenario complete. I do not think this is a problem because whether you download user-contributed scenarios from the Wiki or the Scenario and Campaign development(various threads), you almost always have
a clear indication of whether the campaign is scenario complete or not

No, it took until 0.8.4 to be complete. There is endless discussion on this forum about the big 1.0 release that will mark a feature complete, usable, accessible Wesnoth that the developers are happy with. The same should apply to campaigns, and I'm glad to see others agree with me on this

[Invisible Philosopher]

My standard is:

x.y.z

x is 0 until the campaign is finished.
y increases by one when I release new scenario(s) (and then z is set to 0 / removed)
z increases by one when I release a bugfix or minor modification.

[Viliam]

The unfinished campaigns should be marked clearly in game.

It's bad when user plays 10+ levels of unfinished campaign, then ends with savegame that says that next level is "null"; and even installing new version of Wesnoth (with new version of campaign) will not repair this savegame.

[Viliam]

x.y.z

x is 0 until the campaign is finished.
y increases by one when I release new scenario(s) (and then z is set to 0 / removed)
z increases by one when I release a bugfix or minor modification.

I like this. Simple, yet sufficient.

By the way, I do not like the name of campaign "Son of the Black Eye (chapter I)". The "chapter I" is IMHO only a smart way to say "unfinished".

[dtw]

surprised it is not used already - as far as max is concerned he only need add a 0. to the start of his versioning system - 0.28.3 may be a bit un orthodox but fluxbox is on version 0.9.10 so maybe not to too strange!

i do like the idea of having an x.y.z scheme, i'm assuming everyone follows the idea of y increase for major updates e.g. scenarios added and z increases for bug fixes and minor tweaks

[telex4]

My standard is:

x.y.z

x is 0 until the campaign is finished.
y increases by one when I release new scenario(s) (and then z is set to 0 / removed)
z increases by one when I release a bugfix or minor modification.

I like that too. You could even code the server to force this, by asking the uploader questions like:

"Is the change:
- a minor bug fix
- a new scenario
- the [first stable release|second major release|etc.]"

But then I can imagine people disliking that

[Dacyn]

i'm assuming everyone follows the idea of y increase for major updates e.g. scenarios added and z increases for bug fixes and minor tweaks

Wesnoth does not IIRC: y and z both just mean points at which there were few bugs, and all changes are in CVS.

BTW, should there be CVS versions of campaigns?

[turin]

In my case, i release a 0.x version when i feel it is A stable and B significant progress has been made (meaning at least 3 scenarios).