Testing before 1.0.0

Anything related to PR, release planning and any other non-technical idea how to move the project forward should be discussed here.
User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4078
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Github profile: https://github.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: Testing before 1.0.0

Post by psi29a » 25 May 2013, 22:06

You miss-quoted tarius, he didn't say that. ;)

I work in another industry. We have to guarantee against data-loss to governments and corporations. They do not want "beta" software... sadly, nothing in life is bug-free so I consider all software to be "beta" quality. Maybe I'm just cynical. ;)

We work in an iterative nature, reacting to their needs and our desires to position our product. We SCRUM which when done right is awesome. I've been in this industry (non-gaming) for 8 years now and the only time alpha/beta came up was when marketing and sales was trying to drum up buzz about a few features that they wanted to sell that wasn't up to our engineering standards yet.

I'm not saying it is 'right' or better... just that I don't see the world the same way as some of you. Software to me is always evolving and getting better (mostly) with every iteration. Alpha/beta/release, at least to me, is something out of text-books from the 70/80s.

User avatar
raevol
Posts: 2743
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 01:12
Location: Caldera

Re: Testing before 1.0.0

Post by raevol » 26 May 2013, 00:25

Thanks, fixed the quote.
BrotherBrick wrote:I'm not saying it is 'right' or better... just that I don't see the world the same way as some of you. Software to me is always evolving and getting better (mostly) with every iteration. Alpha/beta/release, at least to me, is something out of text-books from the 70/80s.
Generally I think open source software is served better by your iterative model. High profile, large scale game projects on the other hand are not. Our audience is not people who are going to use our software, whatever the quality is. Our audience is people who will walk away from, and give bad publicity to our project if something they perceive should not be very buggy (an official release) is, in fact, very buggy.

By your model, you should be arguing that we never have a "1.0" release, and never have a big public announcement when we reach "feature complete".

Tarius
Posts: 574
Joined: 24 Oct 2011, 19:29

Re: Testing before 1.0.0

Post by Tarius » 26 May 2013, 02:58

BrotherBrick wrote:You miss-quoted tarius, he didn't say that. ;)

I work in another industry. We have to guarantee against data-loss to governments and corporations. They do not want "beta" software... sadly, nothing in life is bug-free so I consider all software to be "beta" quality. Maybe I'm just cynical. ;)
Actually, I always thought of a beta as like the final stretch of testing before some sort of wide spread release. The terms get thrown around alot today though so I dont think they really have a narrow definition, just something thats almost done(relatively speaking).
I am a bigger fan of tons of control rather than taking the "user-friendly" approach.
-Okulo

User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4078
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Github profile: https://github.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: Testing before 1.0.0

Post by psi29a » 26 May 2013, 08:59

raevol wrote:By your model, you should be arguing that we never have a "1.0" release, and never have a big public announcement when we reach "feature complete".
Huh... we make a big public announcement with every new release. :P

You're close though, that is why I say that 1.0 is feature complete and on par with Morrowind since that was the target all along. That was the goal that Zini explicitly set for the project. I never said that we should release with show-stopping/critical or even major bug because you're right in that it would turn off. We should be playable from beginning to end, support at least the most popular mods and things like TR and Zini's Ultima project (which is even better than Morrowind). We should at least get the majority of the bug backlog cleared out.

Since this is an opensource project and not a "make as fast as possible then do nothing more with it" game from a corporation, then we can afford to play fast and loose. I have a bit more faith in our users to understand that we do give a damn and that we will fix issues that come up instead of ignoring them like most companies.

Side note: A former boss of mine was the president of a IncaGold USA. He would always share his war stories of the game industry circa 1998~2001. Sadly he swore to never work in that industry again. He still plays games though. ;)

User avatar
Zedd
Posts: 288
Joined: 05 Sep 2012, 12:08

Re: Testing before 1.0.0

Post by Zedd » 26 May 2013, 10:43

BrotherBrick wrote: We should be playable from beginning to end, support at least the most popular mods and things like TR and Zini's Ultima project (which is even better than Morrowind).
Didn't know about Zini's Ultima project, quite an impressive side road to get a better engine for the project, or am I mistaking the chronology of things?
Behind you!

User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5446
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: Testing before 1.0.0

Post by Zini » 26 May 2013, 11:08

Nope. You are correct. I joined the OpenMW because we needed a better engine for U9: Redemption.

User avatar
raevol
Posts: 2743
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 01:12
Location: Caldera

Re: Testing before 1.0.0

Post by raevol » 26 May 2013, 11:28

BrotherBrick wrote:I never said that we should release with show-stopping/critical or even major bug because you're right in that it would turn off. We should be playable from beginning to end, support at least the most popular mods and things like TR and Zini's Ultima project (which is even better than Morrowind). We should at least get the majority of the bug backlog cleared out.
Well I'm glad that we now completely agree? How did that happen?
Zini wrote:Nope. You are correct. I joined the OpenMW because we needed a better engine for U9: Redemption.
An ulterior motive all along! Fortunately one that completely benefits everyone...

User avatar
sirherrbatka
Posts: 2121
Joined: 07 Aug 2011, 17:21

Re: Testing before 1.0.0

Post by sirherrbatka » 26 May 2013, 11:34

The fact that zini is so much interested in modding OpenMW is a really good news for whole community for sure.

User avatar
Zedd
Posts: 288
Joined: 05 Sep 2012, 12:08

Re: Testing before 1.0.0

Post by Zedd » 26 May 2013, 13:18

Zini wrote:Nope. You are correct. I joined the OpenMW because we needed a better engine for U9: Redemption.
How motivated can you be :shock:, restarting work on an engine implementation that would take at least several years (if everything went right, which is certainly not always the case)! I mean, this side project is bigger or at least as big as the original one... respect.
Also, how do you finance your life, it seems you're working full-time on these non-profit projects.
This is very off topic and way to straight-forward, I've just been wondering about this for a long time, you can ignore these questions though :oops: .
Behind you!

User avatar
Zini
Posts: 5446
Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 15:16

Re: Testing before 1.0.0

Post by Zini » 26 May 2013, 13:54

Lol, not working full time on any non-profit stuff. Redemption is pretty much on hold for me (other team members are still working on it). For now I have shifted all of my spare time to OpenMW. In the larger scale of things it actually doesn't consume that much time. I'll manage with what time I can make available (not having much in term of other time consuming hobbies and also having completely given up on TV a while back helps a lot though).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MikeMXellers and 6 guests