25 Aug, 2011, Runter wrote in the 61st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
As I am not the original code writer and it creates problem for people to know which version they should choose.


Go with the one that's not a cancerous cyst.
25 Aug, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 62nd comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
My concern was about something like Scandum did to Kavir snippet. Someone coming here to include mssdp support has hardly any way to know wich version he should choose, if Kavir Snippet still works etc.

Most will go to the MSDP specification page and trust my judgment. There are some negative undertones toward my person on this forum because of my political viewpoints, but to most people I've developed the third biggest mud client for the past seven years.
25 Aug, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 63rd comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Rarva.Riendf said:
My concern was about something like Scandum did to Kavir snippet. Someone coming here to include mssdp support has hardly any way to know wich version he should choose, if Kavir Snippet still works etc.

Most will go to the MSDP specification page and trust my judgment. There are some negative undertones toward my person on this forum because of my political viewpoints, but to most people I've developed the third biggest mud client for the past seven years.

Believe me I do not give a shit about your political viewpoints especially since all I care about is code :)
It is the developpment process that annoy me. A specification is only worth its implementation. Implementing a specification is REALLY not the most interesting stuff to code, so if you find one that works, you just go to it. IMHO what Kavir did should have been done by you :p (in C as the langage is low level enough to be easily translated in anything else) or at least be present on your website so you can always provide the last version. (and have any update applied to it without starting to have obsolete code available around)
I appreciate a lot both your work (even if I have no user that benefit from it, as without providing myself plugin/scrips for clients etc, I doubt people will pour the time in, like I would not have implemented it if not for Kavir snippet).
But you should cooperate on that, just saying.
25 Aug, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 64th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
It is the developpment process that annoy me. A specification is only worth its implementation. Implementing a specification is REALLY not the most interesting stuff to code, so if you find one that works, you just go to it. IMHO what Kavir did should have been done by you :p

MSDP is just one of the nine protocols included in my snippet, and one of the others (ATCP) is technically a rival protocol which provides an alternate way to do the same things. Likewise, most of my GUI work (which has been the main selling point of the snippet) has been done in MUSHclient and Mudlet, both of which are direct competitors with Scandum's TinTin++ client.

Scandum's latest version of the snippet works with TinTin++, but there are currently no MUSHclient or Mudlet scripts that support it, so if you update, your GUIs for those clients won't work properly. The nesting also caused critical low-level parsing problems in the one codebase I've tested it on so far. I don't know whether this will effect your mud as well, but I will test it thoroughly before updating my own version of the snippet.

I am not affiliated with any clients, and don't own the specifications to any protocols. I just want to
see more muds offering GUIs, without being tied to specific clients or codebases.

Rarva.Riendf said:
I appreciate a lot both your work (even if I have no user that benefit from it, as without providing myself plugin/scrips for clients etc, I doubt people will pour the time in, like I would not have implemented it if not for Kavir snippet).

I already provided a generic GUI for MUSHclient that you or your players can use as a starting point. Other features, such as MXP and 256 colours, don't require any downloads at all - you can add them to messages or help files just as easily as you'd add ANSI colour.
25 Aug, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 65th comment:
Votes: 0
Thx for the clarification. The basic gui you provide is well too basis to worth it (for players I mean)). It is a very good starting point for coders though. The one you provide for your mud would be my kind of target, but it is more work than I have the time for atm.
25 Aug, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 66th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
IMHO what Kavir did should have been done by you :p (in C as the langage is low level enough to be easily translated in anything else) or at least be present on your website so you can always provide the last version. (and have any update applied to it without starting to have obsolete code available around)
I appreciate a lot both your work (even if I have no user that benefit from it, as without providing myself plugin/scrips for clients etc, I doubt people will pour the time in, like I would not have implemented it if not for Kavir snippet).
But you should cooperate on that, just saying.

Joined efforts are really the way to go, and the occasional conflict is part of the process.

I've released an MSDP automapping script for tintin++ which you might find interesting. All that's required for it to work is adding the ROOM variable as described in the specification, though it'll require instant variable updates to work properly, which KaVir's snippet doesn't support. It shouldn't be too difficult to hack that in though.
25 Aug, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 67th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
All that's required for it to work is adding the ROOM variable as described in the specification, though it'll require instant variable updates to work properly, which KaVir's snippet doesn't support.

Yes it does. Just call MSDPUpdate() after setting the variable/s, and it'll immediately send any that have changed.
26 Aug, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 68th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
My concern was about something like Scandum did to Kavir snippet. Someone coming here to include mssdp support has hardly any way to know wich version he should choose, if Kavir Snippet still works etc. I alerady asked this question as I planned to post updated/enhanced code of some snippets but found disturbing to have to create a new thread. As I am not the original code writer and it creates problem for people to know which version they should choose.


The problem is telling people what they should choose, or worse, removing the ability to choose because the old code is removed or hidden.
26 Aug, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 69th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
The problem is telling people what they should choose, or worse, removing the ability to choose because the old code is removed or hidden.

When you have a version system, you never remove the ability to choose nor hid anything (except to the people that do not know how to use a code versioning system (and I would prefer those people start then asap how to use one before coding again…)
And it is not about telling what to choose but give a good way to make a decision (commits comment helps to know wich version is best suited to you, instead of having to read all the versions you can find and go through them to know)
26 Aug, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 70th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
Tyche said:
The problem is telling people what they should choose, or worse, removing the ability to choose because the old code is removed or hidden.

When you have a version system, you never remove the ability to choose nor hid anything (except to the people that do not know how to use a code versioning system (and I would prefer those people start then asap how to use one before coding again…)
And it is not about telling what to choose but give a good way to make a decision (commits comment helps to know wich version is best suited to you, instead of having to read all the versions you can find and go through them to know)


Mudbytes doesn't implement a revison control system. It's a distribution repository.

The author who uploads a file can update it. For example the Murk++ shows this:
Downloads: 1811 Revisions: 6 Revised on: Jun 12, 2011
File Type: GZip Tar Archive

However, you cannot view or DL the other revisions of that distribution here. I couldn't even tell you if they are actually stored anywhere. The best place to get that is from the source code repository of where the code is actually developed, if it exists.
The MudBytes code repository is not in any way, shape or form designed for development nor is it suitable for development.

That they happened to add a bit of code that allows you to view the contents of some archive formats, doesn't it magically give it the ability to discover changesets. It doesn't handle all archive formats anyway (i.e. you can't view the TeensyMud distribution archive).
26 Aug, 2011, kiasyn wrote in the 71st comment:
Votes: 0
i think it is all stored, but you cant access it atm.
27 Aug, 2011, Runter wrote in the 72nd comment:
Votes: 0
It's probably best that it can't be accessed. At least, not by anyone other than the owner. Generally when you update something you don't want old versions of it here. As Tyche pointed out, this isn't a development repository. And users shouldn't have to sift through buggy or nonfunctioning code before finding final versions. It's also a weird situation when someone other than the author is updating code without their permission. (Particularly in the case where they don't even test it before replacing it?)
27 Aug, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 73rd comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
And users shouldn't have to sift through buggy or nonfunctioning code before finding final versions.


Well I don't think you can change that…
MacMERC_221.hqx
Merc 1.0
Merc 1.0 gcc4 cleanup
Merc 2.0 gcc4 cleanup
Merc 2.1
Merc 2.1 gcc4 cleanup
Merc 2.2
Merc 2.2 gcc4 cleanup
Merc 2.2 Sands
Merc 2.2 Sands gcc4 cleanup
Merc22AmiTCP-exe.lha
Merc22_patchedsrc.tar.gz
Merc_20b.tar.gz
Merc_20c.tar.gz

Which should I use? Maybe the final version of Merc is found in the Envy folder?
;-)

Runter said:
It's also a weird situation when someone other than the author is updating code without their permission. (Particularly in the case where they don't even test it before replacing it?)


Good thing that hasn't happened yet.
27 Aug, 2011, Runter wrote in the 74th comment:
Votes: 0
What does that prove? There's a lot of final version for that software and apparently authors wanted to upload different versions. Such is what happens when open source code gets forked and a lot of people are involved. I don't think any of those are development versions. If you're trying to say merc is mostly poorly written, buggy, garbage. Well, yes. Wink indeed.
27 Aug, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 75th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
I don't think any of those are development versions. If you're trying to say merc is mostly poorly written, buggy, garbage. Well, yes. Wink indeed.

Snicker, the last sentence contradict (in a sense) the first one :p
But yeah I have a hard time finding worthy snippets to implementes when I find many files for them with minor differences, and I am reluctant to add the one I modified (sometimes lightly for a bug fix/little improvement) as it would add even more cruft.
28 Aug, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 76th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
What does that prove? There's a lot of final version for that software and apparently authors wanted to upload different versions. Such is what happens when open source code gets forked and a lot of people are involved. I don't think any of those are development versions. If you're trying to say merc is mostly poorly written, buggy, garbage. Well, yes. Wink indeed.


It's just a snapshot of a directory intended to illusrate that most of the software on this site is indeed nonfunctioning on current systems. Primarily because of bit rot, not bugs. In any case none of it is any more buggy than any typical project of the same complexity. I don't know what you mean when you say that user shouldn't have to sift through it. What's the alternative?
29 Aug, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 77th comment:
Votes: 0
I've linked the specification page back to kavir's August 28 release.

I guess that finalizes the inclusion of tables and arrays in MSDP.
60.0/77