Version 0.16.51
Re: Version 0.16.51
Uhhhh, is there a reason why this version has been pulled from http://www.factorio.com/download/experimental?
I've got some stuff which scrapes the experimental page to get the latest version, and keeps my servers updated with it. But every now and again, a rollback like this happens, and breaks my stuff.
Servers updated to 0.16.51 when they were released, then it saw that the latest release was different (now 0.16.50) and it updated, but then can't load game files.
I should totally put some defensive code in there to check if the minor version is greater, then update. But I'm really not sure why this rollback happens?
See my logs (cron runs on the hour every hour)
[2018-06-15 14:00:03.438230] Server1 - Latest version already in place! Version: 0.16.50
[2018-06-15 15:00:03.441641] Server1 - Newer Version found!
[2018-06-15 15:00:03.441743] Server1 - Latest Version Found: 0.16.51
[2018-06-18 14:00:03.422536] Server1 - Latest version already in place! Version: 0.16.50
This is UTC+2
So between 2018-06-18 11:00:00 and 2018-06-18 12:00:00 UTC the experimental website rolled back 0.16.51?
I've got some stuff which scrapes the experimental page to get the latest version, and keeps my servers updated with it. But every now and again, a rollback like this happens, and breaks my stuff.
Servers updated to 0.16.51 when they were released, then it saw that the latest release was different (now 0.16.50) and it updated, but then can't load game files.
I should totally put some defensive code in there to check if the minor version is greater, then update. But I'm really not sure why this rollback happens?
See my logs (cron runs on the hour every hour)
[2018-06-15 14:00:03.438230] Server1 - Latest version already in place! Version: 0.16.50
[2018-06-15 15:00:03.441641] Server1 - Newer Version found!
[2018-06-15 15:00:03.441743] Server1 - Latest Version Found: 0.16.51
[2018-06-18 14:00:03.422536] Server1 - Latest version already in place! Version: 0.16.50
This is UTC+2
So between 2018-06-18 11:00:00 and 2018-06-18 12:00:00 UTC the experimental website rolled back 0.16.51?
Re: Version 0.16.51
16.51 is stable and therefore not under experimental.
Re: Version 0.16.51
Ahhh okay cool.
So because the latest HEAD is actually stable, my pull off the latest experimental fails. Makes sense.
Cool, so if I just make sure that it only fetches a new version if the minor version is greater, then it should be happy
Thanks!
So because the latest HEAD is actually stable, my pull off the latest experimental fails. Makes sense.
Cool, so if I just make sure that it only fetches a new version if the minor version is greater, then it should be happy
Thanks!
Re: Version 0.16.51
YAY!Loewchen wrote:16.51 is stable and therefore not under experimental.
Re: Version 0.16.51
Stable:
0.16.51
Experimental:
0.16.50
I think the duracell-lawyers were pretty angry.
0.16.51
Experimental:
0.16.50
I think the duracell-lawyers were pretty angry.
Re: Version 0.16.51
I think better option is to check both expermental and stable versions in potential case of new version becoming stable "too fast" for script detection.Vulcanit3 wrote:Ahhh okay cool.
Cool, so if I just make sure that it only fetches a new version if the minor version is greater, then it should be happy
Re: Version 0.16.51
?!dasiro wrote:Stable:
0.16.51
Experimental:
0.16.50
I think the duracell-lawyers were pretty angry.
Why would they be?
Content placement actually benefits them.
- 5thHorseman
- Smart Inserter
- Posts: 1193
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Version 0.16.51
We don't know. All we know is 0.16.51 had a single change, and that was to remove the copper tops of the battery images. The rest is 100% speculation, but I for one can't think of a more likely reason.Gergely wrote:?!dasiro wrote:Stable:
0.16.51
Experimental:
0.16.50
I think the duracell-lawyers were pretty angry.
Why would they be?
Content placement actually benefits them.
Re: Version 0.16.51
And that change was important enough to instantly stabilize it...5thHorseman wrote:We don't know. All we know is 0.16.51 had a single change, and that was to remove the copper tops of the battery images. The rest is 100% speculation, but I for one can't think of a more likely reason.
Re: Version 0.16.51
Well, it has been 15 minor versions since the last stable.Oktokolo wrote:And that change was important enough to instantly stabilize it...5thHorseman wrote:We don't know. All we know is 0.16.51 had a single change, and that was to remove the copper tops of the battery images. The rest is 100% speculation, but I for one can't think of a more likely reason.
There are 10 types of people: those who get this joke and those who don't.
-
- Inserter
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:46 pm
- Contact:
Re: Version 0.16.51
US trademark law says (broadly speaking) that a company can lose a trademark if they fail to defend it. The chance of a judge saying "no, that design belongs to Wube now because you didn't make them stop" is effectively zero, but most major corporations would rather aggressively spam C&Ds than take that chance.Gergely wrote:?!dasiro wrote:Stable:
0.16.51
Experimental:
0.16.50
I think the duracell-lawyers were pretty angry.
Why would they be?
Content placement actually benefits them.
Re: Version 0.16.51
Since 0.16.50 is officially stable now, are there any hints when we will get a closer look on 0.17.x in experimental tree?
Greetings, Ronny
Greetings, Ronny
Re: Version 0.16.51
0.16.51 actuallyrldml wrote:Since 0.16.50 is officially stable now, are there any hints when we will get a closer look on 0.17.x in experimental tree?
Greetings, Ronny
And as for 0.17.0, soon (TM) : when it's ready
You're welcome
Koub - Please consider English is not my native language.
- bobingabout
- Smart Inserter
- Posts: 7352
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 1:01 pm
- Contact:
Re: Version 0.16.51
it was more likely an excuse to implement a "Full" update. Every now and then they release an update that does more than just 0.16.51->0.16.51, so they likely released a 0.16.36->0.16.51 patch. doing it in a new release is "Easier" than adding it to a previous.Oktokolo wrote:And that change was important enough to instantly stabilize it...5thHorseman wrote:We don't know. All we know is 0.16.51 had a single change, and that was to remove the copper tops of the battery images. The rest is 100% speculation, but I for one can't think of a more likely reason.
- 5thHorseman
- Smart Inserter
- Posts: 1193
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Version 0.16.51
Wait, a rational, reasonable explanation? I'm sorry but I can't accept that. Big Duracell is putting the screws on Wube as we speak, is the only explanation I need!bobingabout wrote:it was more likely an excuse to implement a "Full" update. Every now and then they release an update that does more than just 0.16.51->0.16.51, so they likely released a 0.16.36->0.16.51 patch. doing it in a new release is "Easier" than adding it to a previous.
No really that makes sense. Thanks for refreshing my faith in reasonableness.
Re: Version 0.16.51
Looks like a cover up story.5thHorseman wrote:No really that makes sense. Thanks for refreshing my faith in reasonableness.
Re: Version 0.16.51
To be honest... The new icon looks like crap.
Can't even tell what the hell the random mash of pixels is supposed to be.
Looks more like the cheap old C4 bomb models in the early versions of Counter Strike or something. If that was exactly what you were going for then congrats.
Can't even tell what the hell the random mash of pixels is supposed to be.
Looks more like the cheap old C4 bomb models in the early versions of Counter Strike or something. If that was exactly what you were going for then congrats.
- Omnifarious
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:24 pm
- Contact:
Re: Version 0.16.51
Oh, that's a good point. A trademark, not a copyright claim. And the danger Duracell would be defending against would be "Oh, the public has decided that your design now just effectively means 'battery', not 'Duracell Battery' and you can't own the generic image of a battery.". And while this single instance of it happening in this game is likely not sufficient, the worry is that the game will start a trend.thedarkbunny wrote:US trademark law says (broadly speaking) that a company can lose a trademark if they fail to defend it. The chance of a judge saying "no, that design belongs to Wube now because you didn't make them stop" is effectively zero, but most major corporations would rather aggressively spam C&Ds than take that chance.
Google, a long while back, was trying to get people to stop saying "Google it" as a synonym for searching on the Internet out of a similar fear. That effort on their part was doomed to fail, and they kind of knew it.
And yes, like some others, I'm not so fond of the new icon. But I don't really care.
Re: Version 0.16.51
Agreed, unquestionably a statement that someone on the payroll of duracell would say!Oktokolo wrote:Looks like a cover up story.5thHorseman wrote:No really that makes sense. Thanks for refreshing my faith in reasonableness.
I'm not familiar with law in any way, yet this seems bizarre, it's akin to someone saying you no longer own your home because you haven't lived there for a few months/years. At least it seems that way to me.Omnifarious wrote:thedarkbunny wrote:US trademark law says (broadly speaking) that a company can lose a trademark if they fail to defend it. The chance of a judge saying "no, that design belongs to Wube now because you didn't make them stop" is effectively zero, but most major corporations would rather aggressively spam C&Ds than take that chance.
See the daily™ struggles with my Factory! https://www.twitch.tv/repetitivebeats
-
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 952
- Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 12:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Version 0.16.51
trademarks are meant to be a seal of quality, if you allow people to just use your seal without permission then it becomes meaningless as a seal of quality.Ghoulish wrote:Agreed, unquestionably a statement that someone on the payroll of duracell would say!Oktokolo wrote:Looks like a cover up story.5thHorseman wrote:No really that makes sense. Thanks for refreshing my faith in reasonableness.
I'm not familiar with law in any way, yet this seems bizarre, it's akin to someone saying you no longer own your home because you haven't lived there for a few months/years. At least it seems that way to me.Omnifarious wrote:thedarkbunny wrote:US trademark law says (broadly speaking) that a company can lose a trademark if they fail to defend it. The chance of a judge saying "no, that design belongs to Wube now because you didn't make them stop" is effectively zero, but most major corporations would rather aggressively spam C&Ds than take that chance.
It's like allowing a forged signature to bind you into a contract you didn't want.