Factorio Forums

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?

16.51 is stable and therefore not under experimental.

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!

Loewchen wrote:16.51 is stable and therefore not under experimental.

YAY!

Stable:
0.16.51
Experimental:
0.16.50


I think the duracell-lawyers were pretty angry.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

And that change was important enough to instantly stabilize it...

Oktokolo wrote:

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.

And that change was important enough to instantly stabilize it...

Well, it has been 15 minor versions since the last stable.

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.

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.

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

rldml 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

0.16.51 actually
And as for 0.17.0, soon (TM) : when it's ready
You're welcome

Oktokolo wrote:

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.

And that change was important enough to instantly stabilize it...

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.

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.

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!

No really that makes sense. Thanks for refreshing my faith in reasonableness.

5thHorseman wrote:No really that makes sense. Thanks for refreshing my faith in reasonableness.

Looks like a cover up story.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oktokolo wrote:

5thHorseman wrote:No really that makes sense. Thanks for refreshing my faith in reasonableness.

Looks like a cover up story.

Agreed, unquestionably a statement that someone on the payroll of duracell would say!

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.

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.

Ghoulish wrote:

Oktokolo wrote:

5thHorseman wrote:No really that makes sense. Thanks for refreshing my faith in reasonableness.

Looks like a cover up story.

Agreed, unquestionably a statement that someone on the payroll of duracell would say!

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.

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.

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.

It's like allowing a forged signature to bind you into a contract you didn't want.