Reika's Update Checker

[SynfulChaot]

That isn't easy to do or even possible at times. People withhold information, logs, etc. just to get help / annoy devs. Reika can tell you all about that as he deals with it on a daily basis, I don't.

It is possible. Require version and logs for bug reports. Disregard those that don't have them unless you have good reason to believe that it's actually an issue. There. Done.

 

[Reika]

You assume good admins don't read changelogs and aren't capable of making judgement calls for themselves. Please don't do that.

If anything, I am assuming the opposite...and that does cause problems, because more than one person has come to me "I don't have time to read changelogs, does that make me a bad admin?" "Yes." "F*** YOU, YOU P***K!".

Almost never != never.

Almost never as in less than 1% of 1% of the time. It functionally is never, and causing all sorts of other headaches for something that happens once every eight months is insane.

No. To properly test it takes well longer than an hour if you run a modpack of decent size. And then you must not only test it client side, but on a 'test server' as well as some issues only manifest when played on servers.

Are you reading my replies at all? I mentioned I have 150 mods and a private server.

If I can permanently turn it off for my users then that's sufficient for me. I keep them on on my own version. But it must be a permanent disable, not one that will be overridden at anyone else's whims. All my users need to know is that they need to run the newest version of my pack and to report all issues to me. I, then, verify against the newest version of the mods, yes sometimes newer than what's in the pack, and only pass it on to the devs if it still persists then.

Last I checked from every source, including yourself, that only persisted for x number of major versions, not permanently. That isn't sufficient for me.

I haven't missed them. All information provided tells me that it isn't permanent and will be overridden once they become too old for your discretion. Your judgement calls on what version I must run doesn't matter. Just as I shouldn't tell you what you should run or do with your mod, you shouldn't tell me what version I need to be running.

Do you seriously expect me to say "oh, no, running v2 when I have v7 out is fine" or "you have v16 when the newest is v25? sure!"? Those versions are separated by half a year, and if you cannot tend to a pack more than once a month, yes, you really do not have time to manage it at all.

Good on ya. I have other things to do with my free time than just administer my modpack and server. I have other obligations and interests that take a much larger majority of my time, including helping to lead a sizable RP guild in a MMO. Minecraft is just my side hobby to my main hobby.

See above. If an hour a week is too much time to invest in maintaining a pack, I question if you are really able to manage it at all.

They should also not expect to have their ancient bug reports listened to, though.

As I have stated before, there is no good way to filter them out - especially since the lack of a notification means most users, especially pack players, do not even know they are out of date - and on top of that it does nothing for the people who take issue with that policy as well. Remember how I said I would effectively be saying "packs get no support"?

Having the ability to turn off a version checker doesn't destroy the point of it. It just gives people an option if they're fine running old versions that have known, and fixed in later versions, bugs. Sometimes the bugs you know are more desirable than the ones you don't, you know?

When 100% of the target audience - packs - turns it off, yes, it does destroy the point. You mean to tell me that something like Monster - had the checker existed back then - would actually have shipped with it on? Of course not, and we would be right back to square one, with players reporting v16 bugs today.

I should also note that I believe that last update to any modpack before they go unsupported should turn on all version checkers. Because at that point it becomes the user's prerogative.

You are in the minority.

 

[Pyure]

Not really. Mod makers generally fix all real bugs that come to them. But there's the second layer who are put in the tough position.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about fixing bugs, I'm talking about sorting them into major and minor issues, and identifying when a mod is "broken" for the purpose of determining when you decide to fix it.

You might think an exploit that provides 100x power from a generator is no big deal, whereas someone else would say its gamebreaking.

My point is that the dev may be feeling he's doing a good service to the latter, while at the same time he's simply annoying the former. Tough position.

 

[Padfoote]

It is possible. Require version and logs for bug reports. Disregard those that don't have them unless you have good reason to believe that it's actually an issue. There. Done.

And then be blamed for refusing to help people. There truly is no winning here.

Believe me, I've watched both sides of this fight for weeks now. I know enough about both sides. And I can assure both of you I do not in any way want to be involved in this any farther than I have been thus far.

 

[Reika]

You might think an exploit that provides 100x power from a generator is no big deal, whereas someone else would say its gamebreaking.

My point is that the dev may be feeling he's doing a good service to the latter, while at the same time he's simply annoying the former. Tough position.

And then be blamed for refusing to help people. There truly is no winning here..

This and this, plus what I have said before about rumors and other devs listening to hearsay and acting on it.

 

[Pyure]

And then be blamed for refusing to help people. There truly is no winning here.

I'd argue that everyone aside from Reika wins if he puts in a "please_do_not_warn_me_about_out_of_date_mods_ever_I_really_just_dont_care_srsly" config option.

 

[buggirlexpres]

If possible, could you (or someone in the community) test whatever you decide on against ThaumCraft warp effects, so that the black-screen stuff doesn't happen again?

 

[InfinityRaider]

Also, several other developers do the same thing as me and get no flak - I mentioned IChun's notification above, but I also think of things like RWTema's sword and various mod easter eggs, equivalents of which I have and get harassed for but the community is more than willing to accept for other developers. Same goes for how people react to things I say.

Also, a chunk of it really is personal, seeing as I do have traits some see as acceptable targets.

The thing is if I compare you to the devs you mention is that you seem to be a lot closer to the community than them (the number of discussions I've seen you in (and not specifically about you/your mods) far exceeds the number I've seen them in). I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just saying there is a correlation.

 

[SynfulChaot]

If anything, I am assuming the opposite...and that does cause problems, because more than one person has come to me "I don't have time you read changelogs, does that make me a bad admin?" "Yes." "F*** YOU, YOU P***K!".

Yes, yes it does make them a bad admin. No argument there.

Almost never as in less than 1% of 1% of the time. It functionally is never.

I don't rely on anything but absolutes. I prefer known to unknown. Especially when the known isn't a pressing issue. But that's my judgement call to make. Noone elses.

Are you reading my replies at all? I mentioned I have 150 mods and a private server.

Then you're not testing as diligently as I do.

Do you seriously expect me to say "oh, no, running v2 when I have v7 out is fine" or "you have v16 when the newest is v25? sure!"? Those versions are separated by half a year, and if you cannot tend to a pack more than once a month, yes, you really do not have time to manage it at all.

You don't need to say it's fine. You don't even need to support it. But you shouldn't ban it. Let people run what you consider to be 'stupid' if they so desire. That's not your call to make.

See above. If an hour a week is too much time to invest in maintaining a pack, I question if you are really able to manage it at all.

Again, it takes longer than an hour to properly test. That you do it in less means you aren't as diligent as I am or run with a lot of mods that don't update as often. Regardless, it takes longer and sometimes I don't have that time. I manage the server just fecking fine and my users are happy with it.

As I have stated before, there is no good way to filter them out - especially since the lack of a notification means most users, especially pack players, do not even know they are out of date - and on top of that it does nothing for the people who take issue with that policy as well. Remember how I said I would effectively be saying "packs get no support"?

Require logs.

When 100% of the target audience - packs - turns it off, yes, it does destroy the point.

That's because the modpack maintainers are the audience for the update notifications. And any good maintainer has those things on. Seriously. Modpacks practically never run bleeding edge for a very good reason.

You are in the minority.

Then all I can do is keep saying it until other modpack maintainers listen.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about fixing bugs, I'm talking about sorting them into major and minor issues, and identifying when a mod is "broken" for the purpose of determining when you decide to fix it.

You might think an exploit that provides 100x power from a generator is no big deal, whereas someone else would say its gamebreaking.

My point is that the dev may be feeling he's doing a good service to the latter, while at the same time he's simply annoying the former. Tough position.

That's why the modpack maker/server admin should be the intermediary for communication.

And then be blamed for refusing to help people. There truly is no winning here.

Believe me, I've watched both sides of this fight for weeks now. I know enough about both sides. And I can assure both of you I do not in any way want to be involved in this any farther than I have been thus far.

If you blame someone for not providing support when you're not providing them with crucial information then their accusation has zero weight. If you want support then you must provide information. That's how it works in the industry. It's not a unnacceptable request, and those who think it is can stuff it.

I've watched this fight too. Participated in it even. But all I see is the concerns of modpack makers and server administrators ignored.

 

[Reika]

Yes, yes it does make them a bad admin. No argument there.

Well, at least we agree on something.

I don't rely on anything but absolutes. I prefer known to unknown. Especially when the known isn't a pressing issue. But that's my judgement call to make. Noone elses.

There is no such thing as a 100% absolute.

You don't need to say it's fine. You don't even need to support it. But you shouldn't ban it. Let people run what you consider to be 'stupid' if they so desire. That's not your call to make.

"Ban". "Ban". As if I crash the game if you use an old version or something. No. I add a notification that takes 10 seconds to close and can be disabled for more than a month with a simple command. This causes me to raise the question: Are all the hours I waste on old bugs so unimportant? Is my time worth so little to you that the fifteen seconds a month you spend is more valuable?

Require logs.

Have you seen how users post logs? I get unspoilered loading logs, which tend to crash my browser, logs from the wrong launch entirely, logs that do not contain an error, and so on, and then I have to dig through 80K lines to find ".jar.zip" or "v2c". And again, this does nothing for people falsifying it.

That's because the modpack maintainers are the audience for the update notifications. And any good maintainer has those things on. Seriously. Modpacks practically never run bleeding edge for a very good reason.

While I agree with the first half, it is not often seen in practice. Too many pack maintainers just play with it off.

That's why the modpack maker/server admin should be the intermediary for communication.

This is not within my control, or frankly, their control.

If you blame someone for not providing support when you're not providing them with crucial information then their accusation has zero weight.

Again, you are forgetting that this is not going to fly with much of the community, and that they can and will mouth off about it, and much of the community will not understand or care about the technical details. Again, remember this? You can get very far without any basis at all.

 

[SynfulChaot]

There is no such thing as a 100% absolute.

I know. That's why it should be up to the server admin's discretion instead of yours as you're not the one administrating their server.

"Ban". "Ban". As if I crash the game if you use an old version or something. No. I add a notification that takes 10 seconds to close and can be disabled for more than a month with a simple command. This causes me to raise the question: Are all the hours I waste on old bugs so unimportant? Is my time worth so little to you that the fifteen seconds a month you spend is more valuable?

Updating client side, testing, uploading, updating server side on test server, testing again, rolling changes from the test server to the main one, distributing updated pack, and informing users takes significantly longer than 'fifteen seconds'. I appreciate all the bug fixes you and every other modmaker put out. Especially those off you like Vazkii and yourself who update at an honestly frenetic pace. But just because I don't ingest every change as it comes down the line doesn't mean it's wasted. Rest assured I do update to the newest versions of a mod when I feel the aggregated changes are sufficient or if a particular bug does need to get fixed.

EDIT: Striking pointed out that I might have been responding to the wrong aspect of your reply. If it was more focused on the time taken to close out the reminders then that's something *I* am willing to do, but something I'm unwilling to make the users of my pack have to deal with as it's beyond their control

Have you seen how users post logs? I get unspoilered loading logs, which tend to crash my browser, logs from the wrong launch entirely, logs that do not contain an error, and so on, and then I have to dig through 80K lines to find ".jar.zip" or "v2c". And again, this does nothing for people falsifying it.

I have, yes. Those unspoilered logs ... *shudders*. Users are silly people. ID10T, PEBKAC, and PICNIC errors are terms bandied about by techies for a damn good reason. You see it even in enterprise. But would you rather have that information when investigating rather than going on mention only? And wouldn't it weed out those false reports quickly, allowing you to get to the real issues that much quicker?

While I agree with the first half, it is not often seen in practice. Too many pack maintainers just play with it off.

Then that makes them bad maintainers, just like there are bad server owners as well.

This is not within my control, or frankly, their control.

It isn't, but that doesn't mean you should punish server owners because their users go past them. You're punishing the wrong people.

Again, you are forgetting that this is not going to fly with much of the community, and that then can and will mouth off about it, and much of the community will not understand or care about the technical details. Again, remember this? You can get very far without any basis at all.

It will fly better than what you're doing now, IMHO. No matter what you do some people are going to complain. The only difference is the validity of the complaints. If you and everyone with a brain know there's a good reason for it, you can ignore the rabble who will complain regardless of what you choose to do. Because they will. All of us know that. You can't please that crowd.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Updating client side, testing, uploading, updating server side on test server, testing again, rolling changes from the test server to the main one, distributing updated pack, and informing users takes significantly longer than 'fifteen seconds'

I think he was referring to the 15 seconds of closing the dialogue box

 

[SynfulChaot]

I think he was referring to the 15 seconds of closing the dialogue box.

That's something *I* am willing to do, but something I'm unwilling to make the users of my pack have to deal with as it's beyond their control.

 

[Reika]

That's something *I* am willing to do, but something I'm unwilling to make the users of my pack have to deal with as it's beyond their control.

Which is why I wanted to add the ability for only the pack dev to see it. You were very much unsatisfied.

Then that makes them bad maintainers, just like there are bad server owners as well.

Agreed, but they are still a huge fraction. I am not willing to act like everyone is competent.

It isn't, but that doesn't mean you should punish server owners because their users go past them. You're punishing the wrong people.

Again, overly emphatic wording, this time "punish".

 

[SynfulChaot]

Which is why I wanted to add the ability for only the pack dev to see it. You were very much unsatisfied.

Because I was informed, by you I believe, that it is only temporary and not permanent. To me it's only a fix if I can permanently disable it for my end users. The only updates reminders I *might* allow my end users to see are client-side only mods (such as Fastcraft) as that's something they can do themselves if they so desire. I'm still loathe to have it show if I don't have to, though.

Agreed, but they are still a huge fraction. I am not willing to act like everyone is competent.

The problem with that, though, is that then you're treating the competent people as incompetent, and that will never end well. It also looks terrible as it makes it look like you look down on everyone. Whether or not that's true doesn't matter. That's just the appearance it gives.

Again, overly emphatic wording, this time "punish".

Not overly emphatic. True. Making my users have to cancel out things every time they connect because *I* choose not to update for my own personal and practical reasons is punishing them because it's entirely, 100% out of their control.

 

[Reika]

Because I was informed, by you I believe, that it is only temporary and not permanent. To me it's only a fix if I can permanently disable it for my end users. The only updates reminders I *might* allow my end users to see are client-side only mods (such as Fastcraft) as that's something they can do themselves if they so desire. I'm still loathe to have it show if I don't have to, though.

You misunderstood entirely. The "every version" notifier reset is for the pack dev, assuming the "do not show to clients" ability works.

I think he was referring to the 15 seconds of closing the dialogue box

Or the command.

 

[SynfulChaot]

You misunderstood entirely. The "every version" notifier reset is for the pack dev, assuming the "do not show to clients" ability works.

Assuming that 'do not show to clients' is a permanent effect and affects both SMP as well as SSP then I would feel that's sufficient. If I misunderstood it was likely due to bad wording, like your frequent statements that you'd never allow permanent disables for the reminder.

 

[Reika]

Assuming that 'do not show to clients' is a permanent effect I would feel that's sufficient.

*looks out window to see if the world is ending*

affects both SMP as well as SSP

I can try, but this may or may not be technically possible. I do hope so.

like your frequent statements that you'd never allow permanent disables for the reminder.

As in a "do not ever tell me again" config that many others explicitly asked for, and said that even as a pack dev they would use.

 

[Kotaro]

Been thinking about this for a bit now..

Why don't we have a mod where the sole purpose is to alert users to update mods? It could be something like a splash screen as the user logs in, I've seen similar screens done already. There could be an API for the mod dev to send the version update number, how critical it is, and provide a link or download method with or without instructions on how to install it. You know, have a standardized method of alerting people.

As an average user, I'd love to know when other mods need updating instead of waiting for a new pack or keeping track of 100+ mods.

 

[Padfoote]

Been thinking about this for a bit now..

Why don't we have a mod where the sole purpose is to alert users to update mods? It could be something like a splash screen as the user logs in, I've seen similar screens done already. There could be an API for the mod dev to send the version update number, how critical it is, and provide a link or download method with or without instructions on how to install it. You know, have a standardized method of alerting people.

As an average user, I'd love to know when other mods need updating instead of waiting for a new pack or keeping track of 100+ mods.

There is something like this in the KSP modding community and it's rather nice. The problem with it now is convincing devs to switch from their own systems to this if it were to be created.