Re: quality assurance for games
Markus Koschany wrote:
> I think removing stuff is a natural process and talking about it can
> also lead to a new initiative to fix it. It happens to me all the
> time that people change something in which i have put a lot of effort in
> the past. It doesn't really bother me because now i'm working on other cool
> things. I don't want to offend people and the last thing i will ever wish
> for is to make people quit Debian because of a thread i have started.
I think it's important to be careful when processing removals. When
there is software that is merely old or hasn't had an upload in a while
(perhaps no active maintainer, perhaps known bug pending a solution elsewhere),
it's better to keep it. I cannot count the number of times I've dredged
snapshot.debian.net to find and forward-port some tool that was precisely
what I needed at the time, but no longer in Debian (alas, I only needed
most of these once, and didn't want to maintain them, so they remain not
easily available). Similarly, if something is buggy (but fixable), or
otherwise needs several hours of work to get into shape, that oughtn't
be enough to remove it: the process of adding software to Debian is
entirely opaque to most users (and in some cases confusing even to those
of us who have been doing it for some time), so getting it back may not
happen (and an orphan report isn't likely to come to the notice of those
who use the software most: only DDs and those who act like them actually
pay any attention to what is orphaned). And lastly, (and game-specifically),
when a given package provides a unique plot of some sort, it should only
be removed in exceptional circumstances, as if it is old with inactive
upstream, it is unlikely to be revived, and we lose a piece of our culture
when we drop it from Debian (which may be the last remaining place one can
download a tarball).
On the other hand, there does exist software where upstream has moved
on to some replacement, and the older version (typically with another name)
has become buggy and in need of excessive porting (sometimes to the point
where it is unusable/unplayable). These are best removed, as even those
who care about the curation of otherwise lost software with dead upstreams
would tend to agree that everyone should use the replacement in preference.
To some degree, this is even easier for yet-another-sudoku-implementation
(or similar), but it may use some specific GUI library or interface framework
that makes it more appropriate for some users or environments
Even in these situations, one should take some care: for example, the
adonthell developers have moved to mostly working on Dun Barethsol, but
that doesn't make Waste's Edge any less playable or enjoyable (yes, there
are bugs, and yes upstream only cares in a limited way, but this isn't
a case of a replacement fork, rather a case of a new plotline driving
engine improvements, with the last Waste's Edge upstream release in 2008).
The above notwithstanding, if there is software ostensibly maintained
by the games team which ought be removed (unusable, nobody seems to care
about the bugs, not providing any unique gameplay or plotline aspects,
and ideally essentially replaced by something better), I encourage removal:
in my experience under such circumstances, nobody will object, and many
will applaud your efforts, even including those who might otherwise feel
demotivated by removal may be happy to see the combination of the removal
of something old alongside the improvement and promotion of a believable
replacement.
--
Emmet HIKORY
Reply to: