Zandronum

• Fixed: The server reported to be using a testing build instead of a stable one.

• Uses Qt 4.8.6 on Intel OS X which includes better support for retina displays. Note that is seems to disable command+c/command+v in text boxes though.
• Sets of custom parameters can now be stored in config and then switched from combo box on demand (change affects games' pages in configuration box).
• Player area in server details dock wouldn't get cleared when switching to empty server.
• Header for "port" column in server list will now be blank. This column was very narrow and there's no reason to have text there that will never fit inside.
• About dialog: don't screw with fonts anymore as this may not render on all systems properly.
• Change Wadseeker shortcut to Ctrl+Alt+W since Ctrl+W/Command+W is typically used to close a window.
• Wadseeker FTP client: emit finished() immediately when abort() is called as otherwise finished() might not be emitted at all.
• Fixed: "Open URL in browser" for servers would crash the program.
• Fixed: Don’t wrap server details text edits in a scroll view since it causes double scrolling and glitches on OS X.
• Fixed: Testing release downloading was basically broken again by faulty version checking.
• Fixed: Testing release downloader didn't account for errors.

• Windows (installer)
• Windows (base)
• Linux x86
• Linux x86_64
• Mac OS X

Torr Samaho wrote: We are happy to announce the release of Zandronum 1.2.2. It only fixes one minor, but problematic issue introduced with 1.2.1:

• Fixed: The server reported to be using a testing build instead of a stable one.

Tiger wrote:

Torr Samaho wrote: We are happy to announce the release of Zandronum 1.2.2. It only fixes one minor, but problematic issue introduced with 1.2.1:

• Fixed: The server reported to be using a testing build instead of a stable one.

Please do not take this as an attack nor an insult, however, why was this worth a new release? Why is the value (or gain) of this release - extremely minimal? I will not complain about critical bug fixes or security patches, but - this release is simply - - marginal as it is.... Why was this release necessary for such an insignificant change, or better yet - why was the previous build not properly tested before release?

Torr Samaho wrote:

• Uses Qt 4.8.6 on Intel OS X which includes better support for retina displays. Note that is seems to disable command+c/command+v in text boxes though.

Ninjamander wrote: hopefully..this will force everyone to use this version....and not splitting the community in 2 <.>;

President People wrote: I'll stick with not having to type BE rcon passwords by hand, thanks.

Blzut3 wrote:

President People wrote: I'll stick with not having to type BE rcon passwords by hand, thanks.

Right click?

Tiger wrote: Please do not take this as an attack nor an insult, however, why was this worth a new release?

Frits wrote: Can I be rude and inquire about 1.3's ETA though? (Since i've been hearing left and right it's almost done)

Torr Samaho wrote:

Tiger wrote: Please do not take this as an attack nor an insult, however, why was this worth a new release?

Releasing different binaries with exactly the same version string is a very bad idea for numerous reasons.

Tiger wrote:

Torr Samaho wrote:

Tiger wrote: Please do not take this as an attack nor an insult, however, why was this worth a new release?

Releasing different binaries with exactly the same version string is a very bad idea for numerous reasons.

I apologize, but can you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand what you mean by this statement...

Ninjamander wrote: In a nutshell..imagine if they is 2 version of 1.2.2. One is fix, the other one is not. Now, some people who have the fix version and some with a buggy version try to connect to a server (assuming the server will accept both). The result could be...from everything normal to buggy (in the worst case, a crash from the server).

Tiger wrote: I apologize, but can you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand what you mean by this statement...

Torr Samaho wrote:

Tiger wrote: I apologize, but can you elaborate on this? I don't quite understand what you mean by this statement...

First, you lose the uniqueness of the descriptor. For instance, imagine the following conversation: A player reports: My server is marked with a strange "T" on IDE and people can't join. Dev team: Upgrade to 1.2.1. Player: But I'm using 1.2.1. Dev team: Upgrade to the new 1.2.1. Player: WTF?

Also, Zandronum uses the meta data of the Hg changeset it is compiled with to compute the netgame version. This prevents from accidentally mismatching different client and server versions. In this case, old 1.2.1 clients wouldn't be able to join new 1.2.1 servers. Obviously, this is absolutely unacceptable.

In a nutshell, for at least all the reasons you shouldn't have multiple versions of "yourmod1.0.wad", you shouldn't have two different Zandronum versions that have exactly the same name.

Torr Samaho wrote:

Tiger wrote: Please do not take this as an attack nor an insult, however, why was this worth a new release?

Releasing different binaries with exactly the same version string is a very bad idea for numerous reasons.

EDIT:

Frits wrote: Can I be rude and inquire about 1.3's ETA though? (Since i've been hearing left and right it's almost done)

I hope to release a beta for 1.3 by the weekend. If no bugs are found, it will be released as stable.

jwaffe wrote: Just wondering, how is 1.3 coming? Do you guys know if it's going to be out sometime this week?

Torr Samaho wrote:

jwaffe wrote: Just wondering, how is 1.3 coming? Do you guys know if it's going to be out sometime this week?

It took us a bit longer to get the planned account protocol change done and tested, but that's done now and we can release the official beta build soon.

jwaffe wrote: thank you, I will wait to update my servers, then.