Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Streeter]

What are some ways we can smoothly, and without chaos, begin editing the wiki of all the new features? Is there any kind of pre-planning that should take place?

[Orange Wizard]

We're mostly going to copy the strategy from the last major release. That is, a clusterfuck of misinformation, really lame D for Dwarf sections, and poor editing practises.
The whole thing will blow over after a few months, though. After that, no-one will even notice we have a wiki at all.

[lethosor]

Actually, we have been thinking about how to handle this release. At the moment, our current (tentative) plan is this:
* Rename the DF2012 namespace and create a new namespace for the new version (probably v0.34 and DF2014 respectively, although these are subject to change).
* Copy over old articles, but place a template on them to indicate that they may be outdated. This will be a simple way for editors to track down pages that haven't been updated, while avoiding confusion among readers regarding the status of certain pages. Things certain to have changed, like trees and plants, will likely not be copied over at all.
Not specific to the migration:
 * I have made some basic citation templates, which (at the moment) allow people to reference forum threads and talk page discussions where research has taken place, as well as devlog posts and other pages. We're hoping this makes tracking down information easier and reduces the number of {{verify}} tags scattered around various pages.

[Bouchart]

With the 2015DF release will we be doing the same general thing?  I wasn't paying attention last time around.

[lethosor]

I don't know if we'll be creating a new namespace for the new version or not - in the past, we've only done that for major versions that break compatibility, and it's unclear if the next version will or not.

[Bouchart]

Major updates always break save compatibility and minor ones occasionally do too.  As far as I can tell Toady hasn't said anything one way or another, but since it's not a minor bugfix release and it'll have all sorts of new features I'd be amazed if old saves were compatible.

[lethosor]

Toady did say he was trying to keep save compatibility in a FotF reply, although not in recent months. Major releases have not always broken compatibility - 0.21, 0.22, and 0.23 were all compatible, as were 0.27 and 0.28.

[Zarathustra30]

If it does break compatibility, should we call the new release DF2015 or DF2016? DF2016 would be accurate for more of the subsequent releases.

(Assuming the new version gets released this year)

[Sutremaine]

Toady did say he was trying to keep save compatibility in a FotF reply, although not in recent months. Major releases have not always broken compatibility - 0.21, 0.22, and 0.23 were all compatible, as were 0.27 and 0.28.

But .28 skipped to 0.31, then 0.34, and now 0.40. I doubt the next release will be 0.41.

Why not call this version of DF by its release number? Then again, I don't understand why the previous few releases weren't called by number.

[lethosor]

This hasn't been as long of a gap as other major releases, though. Other than that, we really don't know too much about compatibility.
We called the current release DF2014 because Toady said that he would be trying to do more frequent releases that didn't break compatibility, so we didn't want to have to rename the namespace every time the version number changed. DF2014 was also a pretty widespread term by the time of the release.