I agree with OP. Don't even start 1.4 snapshots until 1.3 is fixed. I am fine with 1.2.5 type bugs, but the water into rock death is crap. Same with the tool thing. Oh, and derpy creepers. (I don't mind the derpy zombies, kinds fits imo lol)
So yeah, fix 1.3 to it's at least as playable as 1.2.5, THEN work on 1.4 snapshots.
And yes, if a 1.4 snapshot is released, then jeb IS saying 1.3.1 is good enough. At least good enough that he feels that working on 1.4 is a better use of his time. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe @Dinnerbone is in charge if 1.3 updates, when not at Ikea. I dunno.. if 1.4 snaps come out before 1.3.2, then somethings amiss.
Jeb never said that 1.3.1 was stable or done, he just said that 1.4 snapshots were being worked on.
Your title is misleading and untrue.
Sadly, one of the moderators agrees with you and went over my head to change the title. I completely disagree with that action. I suppose somebody decided to "report" me and get some moderator action on that title.
Well, so be it. I said what I thought and meant what I said. If the truth hurts, it is too bad that it has to be censored in this way that I think is unnecessary.
I kind of have to agree though, talking about making a new snapshot does imply that there are no major bugs left but I feel the clipping and nether bugs(I don't experience that one but others do) should be fixed before they go sauntering onto snapshots again.
Not saying that I know their process of doing things, but in my experience as a software developer ... we are always working 2 releases most of the time, sometimes 3 in a production system. So, it is quite possible they were working 1.4 in some capacity before 1.3 was even released. Doesn't mean they haven't continued focus on 1.3. Also snapshots can be for maintenance releases also, nowhere in the tweet does it say that its a 1.4 snapshot from what I read. Could be a snapshot for an upcoming 1.3 path, who knows, like everyone else I am speculating so just let it happen.
i can't feel sorry for anyone as long as i don't get them updates
You guys are unbelieveable! First you all moan and whine about how long 1.3 is taking so that they do rush it out and... surprise, surprise... it's full of bugs you moan again because you updated to untested software without making a backup of the 1.2.5 jar so that you can roll back and now we get comments and general feeling like this?
You all know the lighting bugs that were (And I suppose, are) fairly common in SMP, well, there's been a MASSIVE influx of them on SSP, I have an exp farm which I can turn on and off with redstone lamps but the light tends to get 'stuck' in the water since the update, bugs the hell out of me. I hope nothing gets changed in terrain generation, I still have yet to head out and generate new chunks for the new biomes and the temples etc.
Edit: Also when the light gets stuck, it is actual light as mobs were spawning and I checked the water and the light level was different to what it was supposed to be.
Dinnerbone, I agree that forking the snapshots would be a painful way to go. Many people here could handle it, but about as many couldn't I'd wager.
In a way, the naming convention of the snapshots, by week, is already nicely vague on this issue of which version it applies to. You can release a snapshot and just not say if it's for 1.3.2 or 1.4.0. Or be cryptic (and perhaps honest) and say it's for both version at once. That's a quirky Mojang thing to do.
Well, they come in cartridges(pretty cheap) and you plug them into the usb port. Make sure you go through the installation wizard properly or else it will override some of your other program files.
why even post this spamm. hes looking for help and this is what u give him. ur a ****tard kyoshinda
There will be a 1.4, and we have things already coded for 1.4. This requires a snapshot; okay, not required immediately, we could just not put a snapshot up for a week or a month or five, but what's the point when we can do it right now and get early feedback?
I am not here trying to complain about you being eager to push forward toward developing new features. I've been in your position and the temptation is very real.
The problem here is when you get in a position to draw the line on your software and call it a major release. I'll also note we have been spoiled sort of by how Notch did things in the past where he did (sort of) concentrate on trying to clean up bugs before moving on to developing new content. Then again, Notch didn't use the snapshot system you guys are using now in between major releases but instead simply threw stuff against the wall hoping players would like it. For myself, I like this whole snapshot system between major releases.
I'll also note something else which is important: This software is no longer in Beta release. It is expected to have a certain level of quality to be seen as professional. When new features are added it also presumes that any bugs which show up along the way to degrade the performance will also be addressed. More specifically to Minecraft, I will say that some of the bugs such as falling into the void due to passing through Nether portals and (my own personal) respawning issues in SP are things that need to be fixed before you go on. I can live with these bugs as I'm technically competent enough to cope with them, and the most annoying bugs (for me personally) are things I can simply patch myself since I have access to the MCP tools. There are millions of Minecraft fans that aren't quite in that position though.
That it is very difficult to maintain a fork of the code base is something I can really appreciate. That is in fact why I started this thread, because the tone of the tweet that Jeb wrote sort of implied that bug fixes in 1.3 were being casually dismissed (even though several people thought I was reading too much into that tweet). Your post here sort of confirms that was the intention.
What I do appreciate here though, and something I think is refreshing, is that you are listening to the community when honest and well formed criticism is being leveled. You and the company you work for are certainly free to do anything you want and you don't need to listen to me or any of the other people who play this game, but it is amazing that you do listen, and that something of a bug fix is even being considered. From the bottom of my heart I thank you for considering that these bugs really do need to be addressed. This thread will have served its purpose if that has indeed been accomplished.
The thing is Korihor, the Minecraft development system isn't like most games. It's constantly being updated and new versions being released. It's never "done" or "finished" and shouldn't be treated as such.
The thing is Korihor, the Minecraft development system isn't like most games. It's constantly being updated and new versions being released. It's never "done" or "finished" and shouldn't be treated as such.
True, but which version of the game do you think is more stable: 1.2.5 or 1.3.1? By stable I am suggesting which version of the game would you be willing to give to somebody who is completely unfamiliar with the game and you would want to have try out for the first time? Why is there any sort of a difference between these versions?
To hang my hat on the answer, I am suggesting that 1.2.5 is by far and away much more stable and something I would strongly recommend to somebody brand new to the Minecraft experience. On the other hand, 1.2.5 is much more stable even than many of the earlier versions. I'm not saying it is perfect, but that version had fewer problems where players wouldn't get trapped in situations where they might simply give up even playing the demo version of the game after playing for an hour or so.
BTW, I got started playing Minecraft seriously via the PC Gamer demo, where after I built a base and had some fun playing the game until the demo quit... then I pulled out my credit card and purchased a license for Minecraft. In other words, for me the demo worked just as Notch had hoped.
I had played an earlier prototype of Minecraft... I think it was shortly after the minecarts were introduced (the wiki says that was the June 2010 Infdev edition... pre Alpha... and seems to be the right time frame from my recollection). While the roller coasters that players made at the time were fun and I played on a couple of them, there were enough bugs in the game at the time that I actually wrote off Minecraft as an interesting experiment but I put it into a backburner of "nice, but maybe later".
Game stability is an issue that impacts who will play the game, and big game crashing bugs can be enough to discourage people from making a purchase. There are alternatives in the game market that there are plenty of other games you can purchase, where the Minecraft community isn't enough to convince you to be involved. It certainly was in my case until the game became much more stable than those early prototypes.
Development snapshots are expected to be unstable and full of bugs. Not the formal release versions that are made available for wide release. When the client says "There is a new version of Minecraft available, do you want to update?", I expect that by clicking on "Yes" that my experience will at least be as pleasant with the new version as the previous one that I just got through playing. This isn't to say that sometimes there is something which slips through the cracks which got missed on a major update, but that is why you have minor "bugfix" updates that should legitimately be happening shortly after the major updates.
P.S. In the early days of Minecraft, before the current snapshot/major release system, updates were happening so frequently that often bug fixes would simply be combined with new content showing up. If we have to "just live with" the current major bugs until the 1.4 version comes out and then need to confront a whole new set of major bugs in six months that won't be fixed for another six months further on... something is definitely broken. Yes, I saw that there will be a version 1.3.2.... but if I had not raised this issue do you think it would have happened?
True, but which version of the game do you think is more stable: 1.2.5 or 1.3.1? By stable I am suggesting which version of the game would you be willing to give to somebody who is completely unfamiliar with the game and you would want to have try out for the first time? Why is there any sort of a difference between these versions?
To hang my hat on the answer, I am suggesting that 1.2.5 is by far and away much more stable and something I would strongly recommend to somebody brand new to the Minecraft experience. On the other hand, 1.2.5 is much more stable even than many of the earlier versions. I'm not saying it is perfect, but that version had fewer problems where players wouldn't get trapped in situations where they might simply give up even playing the demo version of the game after playing for an hour or so.
BTW, I got started playing Minecraft seriously via the PC Gamer demo, where after I built a base and had some fun playing the game until the demo quit... then I pulled out my credit card and purchased a license for Minecraft. In other words, for me the demo worked just as Notch had hoped.
I had played an earlier prototype of Minecraft... I think it was shortly after the minecarts were introduced (the wiki says that was the June 2010 Infdev edition... pre Alpha... and seems to be the right time frame from my recollection). While the roller coasters that players made at the time were fun and I played on a couple of them, there were enough bugs in the game at the time that I actually wrote off Minecraft as an interesting experiment but I put it into a backburner of "nice, but maybe later".
Game stability is an issue that impacts who will play the game, and big game crashing bugs can be enough to discourage people from making a purchase. There are alternatives in the game market that there are plenty of other games you can purchase, where the Minecraft community isn't enough to convince you to be involved. It certainly was in my case until the game became much more stable than those early prototypes.
Development snapshots are expected to be unstable and full of bugs. Not the formal release versions that are made available for wide release. When the client says "There is a new version of Minecraft available, do you want to update?", I expect that by clicking on "Yes" that my experience will at least be as pleasant with the new version as the previous one that I just got through playing. This isn't to say that sometimes there is something which slips through the cracks which got missed on a major update, but that is why you have minor "bugfix" updates that should legitimately be happening shortly after the major updates.
Well now we know.
"The snapshot will be on the "1.4 track", and not the "1.3.2 bug patch track", in case that makes any sense"
Straight from the horses mouth.
But yay! we do get 1.3.2
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't play vanilla? You don't know **** about minecraft.
Don't know how to make link to twitter, but here it is ;
Edvin Tot @EdvinTot @jeb_@Dinnerbone The Nether Portal bug in 1.3.1 when you fall into void, die and lose everything is a real gamebreaker :-( please fix asap
So yeah, fix 1.3 to it's at least as playable as 1.2.5, THEN work on 1.4 snapshots.
And yes, if a 1.4 snapshot is released, then jeb IS saying 1.3.1 is good enough. At least good enough that he feels that working on 1.4 is a better use of his time. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe @Dinnerbone is in charge if 1.3 updates, when not at Ikea. I dunno.. if 1.4 snaps come out before 1.3.2, then somethings amiss.
Sadly, one of the moderators agrees with you and went over my head to change the title. I completely disagree with that action. I suppose somebody decided to "report" me and get some moderator action on that title.
Well, so be it. I said what I thought and meant what I said. If the truth hurts, it is too bad that it has to be censored in this way that I think is unnecessary.
Version 2.1 now updated for MC 1.6.2
But no.. it's playable, even if sometimes I'm playing like this guy
You guys are unbelieveable! First you all moan and whine about how long 1.3 is taking so that they do rush it out and... surprise, surprise... it's full of bugs you moan again because you updated to untested software without making a backup of the 1.2.5 jar so that you can roll back and now we get comments and general feeling like this?
Edit: Also when the light gets stuck, it is actual light as mobs were spawning and I checked the water and the light level was different to what it was supposed to be.
In a way, the naming convention of the snapshots, by week, is already nicely vague on this issue of which version it applies to. You can release a snapshot and just not say if it's for 1.3.2 or 1.4.0. Or be cryptic (and perhaps honest) and say it's for both version at once. That's a quirky Mojang thing to do.
why even post this spamm. hes looking for help and this is what u give him. ur a ****tard kyoshinda
https://twitter.com/jeb_/status/233480472989167616
Note the "We'll probably do a 1.3.2 to patch it" part
1.3.2 Thread
- The Cubic Chunks Mod is back! Be a part of it's rebirth and Development.
-- Robinton's Mods: [ Mirror ] for some of his Mods incl Cubic Chunks Mod, due to DropBox broken links.
- Dungeon Generator for the Open Cubic Chunks Mod
- QuickSAVE-QuickLOAD for the Open Cubic Chunks Mod
I am not here trying to complain about you being eager to push forward toward developing new features. I've been in your position and the temptation is very real.
The problem here is when you get in a position to draw the line on your software and call it a major release. I'll also note we have been spoiled sort of by how Notch did things in the past where he did (sort of) concentrate on trying to clean up bugs before moving on to developing new content. Then again, Notch didn't use the snapshot system you guys are using now in between major releases but instead simply threw stuff against the wall hoping players would like it. For myself, I like this whole snapshot system between major releases.
I'll also note something else which is important: This software is no longer in Beta release. It is expected to have a certain level of quality to be seen as professional. When new features are added it also presumes that any bugs which show up along the way to degrade the performance will also be addressed. More specifically to Minecraft, I will say that some of the bugs such as falling into the void due to passing through Nether portals and (my own personal) respawning issues in SP are things that need to be fixed before you go on. I can live with these bugs as I'm technically competent enough to cope with them, and the most annoying bugs (for me personally) are things I can simply patch myself since I have access to the MCP tools. There are millions of Minecraft fans that aren't quite in that position though.
That it is very difficult to maintain a fork of the code base is something I can really appreciate. That is in fact why I started this thread, because the tone of the tweet that Jeb wrote sort of implied that bug fixes in 1.3 were being casually dismissed (even though several people thought I was reading too much into that tweet). Your post here sort of confirms that was the intention.
What I do appreciate here though, and something I think is refreshing, is that you are listening to the community when honest and well formed criticism is being leveled. You and the company you work for are certainly free to do anything you want and you don't need to listen to me or any of the other people who play this game, but it is amazing that you do listen, and that something of a bug fix is even being considered. From the bottom of my heart I thank you for considering that these bugs really do need to be addressed. This thread will have served its purpose if that has indeed been accomplished.
Version 2.1 now updated for MC 1.6.2
The snapshot will be posted with the Weekly Chunk later tonight
True, but which version of the game do you think is more stable: 1.2.5 or 1.3.1? By stable I am suggesting which version of the game would you be willing to give to somebody who is completely unfamiliar with the game and you would want to have try out for the first time? Why is there any sort of a difference between these versions?
To hang my hat on the answer, I am suggesting that 1.2.5 is by far and away much more stable and something I would strongly recommend to somebody brand new to the Minecraft experience. On the other hand, 1.2.5 is much more stable even than many of the earlier versions. I'm not saying it is perfect, but that version had fewer problems where players wouldn't get trapped in situations where they might simply give up even playing the demo version of the game after playing for an hour or so.
BTW, I got started playing Minecraft seriously via the PC Gamer demo, where after I built a base and had some fun playing the game until the demo quit... then I pulled out my credit card and purchased a license for Minecraft. In other words, for me the demo worked just as Notch had hoped.
I had played an earlier prototype of Minecraft... I think it was shortly after the minecarts were introduced (the wiki says that was the June 2010 Infdev edition... pre Alpha... and seems to be the right time frame from my recollection). While the roller coasters that players made at the time were fun and I played on a couple of them, there were enough bugs in the game at the time that I actually wrote off Minecraft as an interesting experiment but I put it into a backburner of "nice, but maybe later".
Game stability is an issue that impacts who will play the game, and big game crashing bugs can be enough to discourage people from making a purchase. There are alternatives in the game market that there are plenty of other games you can purchase, where the Minecraft community isn't enough to convince you to be involved. It certainly was in my case until the game became much more stable than those early prototypes.
Development snapshots are expected to be unstable and full of bugs. Not the formal release versions that are made available for wide release. When the client says "There is a new version of Minecraft available, do you want to update?", I expect that by clicking on "Yes" that my experience will at least be as pleasant with the new version as the previous one that I just got through playing. This isn't to say that sometimes there is something which slips through the cracks which got missed on a major update, but that is why you have minor "bugfix" updates that should legitimately be happening shortly after the major updates.
P.S. In the early days of Minecraft, before the current snapshot/major release system, updates were happening so frequently that often bug fixes would simply be combined with new content showing up. If we have to "just live with" the current major bugs until the 1.4 version comes out and then need to confront a whole new set of major bugs in six months that won't be fixed for another six months further on... something is definitely broken. Yes, I saw that there will be a version 1.3.2.... but if I had not raised this issue do you think it would have happened?
Version 2.1 now updated for MC 1.6.2
Replace the minecraft.jar with that snapshot minecraft.jar.
Well now we know.
"The snapshot will be on the "1.4 track", and not the "1.3.2 bug patch track", in case that makes any sense"
Straight from the horses mouth.
But yay! we do get 1.3.2
Everybody, chill out.