Beta Patch Notes e1.4.1

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
I think they will have maybe 2 or 3 .....1.41 versions ..All being tested at TW apart from the one we have. there main 1.41 is there that may work 100 times better than the one we have. the one we got has maybe different changes on it .. before the game gos live they take the best parts of all put it into one then send it out. After being tested by them in these next 4 days.
So e could be Version a,b,c,d,e,
 
Dean Beecham said:
I think they will have maybe 2 or 3 .....1.41 versions ..All being tested at TW apart from the one we have. there main 1.41 is there that may work 100 times better than the one we have. the one we got has maybe different changes on it .. before the game gos live they take the best parts of all put it into one then send it out. After being tested by them in these next 4 days.
So e could be Version a,b,c,d,e,
Click to expand...
"e" is early access before it was "b" for beta, once it goes out and get released the count will reset and start again from 1.0.0 without a letter infront

its version 1.4.1 then 1.4.2 then 1.4.3 and so on
 
iseeu.jpg
 
I'm getting the impression they all just merge random untested **** from dev branches and push it out to the beta. Give it a version number and hope for the best.
 
Caps said:
its how they version it though
Click to expand...
That cannot be how they version, because it is not versioning. That's like saying being dead is how some people live; i.e the argument just doesn't make sense. Regardless of what you call it, even if you change a single symbol in your code it becomes a new version. Therefore, you cannot logically have "different versions" of the "same version." In your example, you cannot have different codes all versioned by 1.4.1; because if you do so then "1.4.1" is not a version.
 
Last edited:
mehmeteking said:
That cannot be how they version, because it is not versioning. That's like saying being dead is how people live; i.e the argument just doesn't make sense. Regardless of what you call it, even if you change a single symbol in your code it becomes a new version. Therefore, you cannot logically have "different versions" of the "same version." In your example, you cannot have different codes all versioned by 1.4.1; because if you do so then "1.4.1" is not versioning.
Click to expand...
you got a sequence after that aswell, but that doesnt play any role in the patchnotes. Its not really relevant for the customers.

we are on e1.4.1.230030 atm
 
Caps said:
we are on e1.4.1.230030 atm
Click to expand...
Wait... I just realized it is very likely that e1.4.1.230030 is not even a version in the first place. It looks suspiciously like a build number, for I doubt they tracked 230030 changes after 1.4.1... If it is indeed build number and 1.4.1 is what they call various versions of their code, it means TW literally does not even do versioning... Wow... This is actually sad.
 
Last edited:
Yangbang said:
So 1.4.1, beta 1.4 1, and e1.4.1 are all the same thing?

Also is b or e 1.4 the same as the above?
Click to expand...
Short answer:
Yes, you can call it "1.4.1," "e1.4.1" or "josephine" if you like. Whatever number or name you put there, it has to be unique and relate to a specific state of your source code. Otherwise, it is a vague identifier which in effect means nothing.

Long answer:
The part with "x.y.z" comes from semver. Note that while TW do not adhere to semver, it is also not necessary for versioning. The letters in front (or after) are often used to indicate the state of software in terms of completeness and what end-users should expect from it. As part of its development cycle, software is often released in various states of completeness commonly denoted with alpha, beta, release candidate, early access, etc. None of these are well-defined, which is why their use differs from company to company.

However, irrespective of your software's completeness, a version must refer to a single state of your source code; which by extension means that there is no special treatment for 'e' within "e1.4.1" in terms of versioning. The same with 'b', 'beta', etc. Note that versioning by nature is not semantic, nor is it chronological. That is why semver (semantic versioning) was developed to introduce some universally understood semantics into it. That said, semantics only help convey some information about the software state.
 
Last edited:
This is a riveting discussion, could you guys take the arguments about what you think is proper software versioning to another thread?

It's a little irritating having to wade through days of off-topic debates for the people who just want to follow updates on the beta patch.
 
DarknMamaw said:
No, it is holiday today in Turkey.Maybe Friday this week.
Click to expand...
Wednesday is possible. They seemed ready to push out on Friday last week but decided not to because they would be on skeleton crew for 4 straight days, and that's a bad time to push new builds out.

I just hope that they don't push 1.4.1 to main branch without doing something about the war spam.
 
Badcritter said:
Wednesday is possible. They seemed ready to push out on Friday last week but decided not to because they would be on skeleton crew for 4 straight days, and that's a bad time to push new builds out.

I just hope that they don't push 1.4.1 to main branch without doing something about the war spam.
Click to expand...
Yes totally agree playing late game on 1.4.1 and it is crazy at the moment I am a vassal with Vlandia and we are at war with 5 factions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Piconi
  • Sticky
Patch Notes v1.2.9
16 17 18
Replies
345
Views
32K
Aegon-Targaryen
Dejan
  • Sticky
Patch Notes v1.2.8
6 7 8
Replies
155
Views
18K
pekka05
New Strategies for a more difficult game
Replies
10
Views
350
Count_Morfetico
Count_Morfetico
Back
Top Bottom