0001490: Backport ZDoom 2.5.0

(0007139)
Dusk (developer)
2013-09-08 09:59
edited on: 2013-09-08 10:00

I'll be linking more tickets as the backporting progresses. I'm searching for the tickets based on the commit descriptions so yeah.

What to do about these tickets? Mark as resolved or needs testing as they are backported?

(0007142)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2013-09-08 10:25

I think if would be good if these are marked as "needs testing" once they are backported.

BTW: 0000526, 0000470 and 0001233 should be backported by now. We'll have to resolve an issue with the compat flags before we release the first beta build with upgraded ZDoom base though.

(0007144)
Dusk (developer)
2013-09-08 10:47
edited on: 2013-09-08 11:26

Quote
BTW: 0000526, 0000470 and 0001233 should be backported by now.

Right, I found these tickets by searching for keywords included in your commit descriptions. RSS feeds FTW!

Also what's your stance on this ticket's visibility?

(0007146)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2013-09-08 11:26

I'm fine with making this ticket public.

(0007147)
Arco (updater)
2013-09-08 13:39
edited on: 2013-09-08 13:47

Issues 0000097, 0001142, 0001103, and 0000343 also coincide with ZDoom 2.4.1. I think these issues should be treated as the same as the codebase get's updated. I'll find more that conflict with this issue shortly...

(0007318)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2013-10-05 17:48

I have reached 2.4.1 and think about continuing to 2.5.0.

(0007319)
Arco (updater)
2013-10-05 18:05

Would it be applicable to release a beta to test the updated codebase and then upgrade as we go along? There are several tickets that need to be added onto the relationships that go with 2.5.0, and, I think, if we would be able to test the latest executable, any bugs that appear can be quickly dealt with as we go along with the updated Zdoom codebase.

(0007320)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2013-10-05 19:23

Here is a current snapshot of 2.0.

(0007398)
Arco (updater)
2013-10-13 19:31

Added two tickets that correlate with 2.5.0. In the process of finding more.

(0007464)
Ivan (reporter)
2013-10-26 12:31

There's one big change this version interests me that is not on that list, and it, as you probably guessed, has to do with polyobjects! The first few sentences from this thread explains it:'http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?t=26755& [^]'

(0007482)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2013-10-28 19:58

Coincidentally I ported the first version of new polyobject code yesterday. It's completely untested and most likely very buggy. In particular it's unclear whether this works online or how it reacts to maps resets. I just transferred the old netcode and map reset stuff to the new code base. This build shows the current state.

(0007501)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2013-11-02 12:21

I have finally arrived at ZDoom 2.5.0 / GZDoom 1.5.0. Here is a first binary based on 2.5.0.

(0007504)
Ivan (reporter)
2013-11-02 21:21

Good news is I just tested the polyobj changes on my test wad supplied in here =>'http://zandronum.com/tracker/view.php?id=1369 [^]' with the sector in the middle merged, and I must say they work perfectly without errors. However, the desync issue I have on the same link still applies.

(0007540)
DevilHunter (reporter)
2013-11-11 12:58

Small Question, where does one find a copy of Gzdoom 1.5.0 for Testing?? I managed to only fine Gzdoom 1.5.3 which does have Zdoom 2.5.0 in it.

Also, has Gameinfo been updated at all? No mods from Zdoom Forums are working, assuming they don't require anything above zdoom 2.5.0

(0007541)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2013-11-11 20:31

I compiled and uploaded GZDoom 880 which is what the current Zandronum 2.0 betas are based on.

(0007543)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2013-11-12 07:11

Talking about GZDoom 1.5.3. I noticed that there are numerous GZDoom releases that happened between ZDoom 2.5.0 and 2.6.0. How stable are those? I think it wouldn't be a problem to do some further updates.

(0007548)
Blzut3 (administrator)
2013-11-13 04:53
edited on: 2013-11-13 04:54

I can't say much since I don't follow GZDoom releases. Although looking at just the 1.5.x series it doesn't look like Graf did much more than randomly decide to release snapshots. In the series I see the new menu code being added and the USDF dialog format. Both of these features took a little while to iron out.

ZDoom releases are typically only done when the reported bug count is low (< 30). Obviously stable releases are more tested than the development versions (which is kind of odd that that is still the case given a lot of mods, (un)fortunately, target development versions). You're going to have to deal with back porting fixes either way, but if I had to bet, ZDoom releases are more stable.

(0007549)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2013-11-13 07:11

Does anybody else have experience with these GZDoom versions? The new menu code is something I thought about avoiding for 2.0.

(0007550)
Edward-san (developer)
2013-11-13 12:28

Quote
In the series I see the new menu code being added and the USDF dialog format.

Don't forget FluidSynth (r895 onward) and textured automaps (r909 without gl, r912 with gl). Just for more info, USDF is in r901 and menu code in r952.

Imho, Torr, if you want to avoid all these features, you can still backport till r894.

(0007554)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2013-11-13 18:26

I don't expect FluidSynth, textured automap or USDF (not completely sure about this one and of course it would have no netcode at first) to cause large conflicts with Zandronum's custom code additions. So I wouldn't mind having them as long as they work properly in our target GZDoom revision. For the menu code I know that large chunks of Zandronum specific code have to be rewritten (although I'd love to get rid of the old menu code...).

(0009909)
StrikerMan780 (reporter)
2014-07-08 21:11

I'm going to guess that despite the rewrite that would be required for the new Menu Code, it would be a lot less of a pain than it was to write the original menus to begin with?

(0010602)
StrikerMan780 (reporter)
2014-10-15 22:19

I see this is still marked as "Needs Testing". Would it be a good idea to make a list of specific additions from 2.5.0 that were introduced since 1.3 that need testing? (Allowing process of elimination)

(0010609)
Torr Samaho (administrator)
2014-10-16 05:57

Yes, having such a list would be great.

(0010613)
Edward-san (developer)
2014-10-16 22:29

I believe the version history from the zdoom wiki has enough info (I have no idea about gzdoom...). The changes which would interest are from the beginning of 2010 to before 2011. It's huge indeed :)

(0011833)
Dusk (developer)
2015-03-16 01:14
edited on: 2015-03-16 01:15

All child tickets are resolved! Good job team!
With that I think we can close this one too.

This issue is already marked as resolved. If you feel that is not the case, please reopen it and explain why.
Supporters:	ZzZombo DevilHunter Vavency Combinebobnt Monsterovich
Opponents:	No one explicitly opposes this issue yet.

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2013-09-08 09:57	Dusk	New Issue
2013-09-08 09:57	Dusk	Status	new => assigned
2013-09-08 09:57	Dusk	Assigned To	=> Torr Samaho
2013-09-08 09:57	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000526
2013-09-08 09:58	Dusk	Relationship added	related to 0000470
2013-09-08 09:58	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0001233
2013-09-08 09:58	Dusk	Relationship replaced	parent of 0000470
2013-09-08 09:59	Dusk	Note Added: 0007139
2013-09-08 09:59	Dusk	Note Edited: 0007139	View Revisions
2013-09-08 10:00	Dusk	Note Edited: 0007139	View Revisions
2013-09-08 10:22	Torr Samaho	Target Version	=> 2.0
2013-09-08 10:25	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0007142
2013-09-08 10:47	Dusk	Note Added: 0007144
2013-09-08 11:26	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0007146
2013-09-08 11:26	Dusk	Note Edited: 0007144	View Revisions
2013-09-08 11:27	Dusk	View Status	private => public
2013-09-08 11:27	Dusk	Description Updated	View Revisions
2013-09-08 11:28	Torr Samaho	Relationship added	parent of 0000699
2013-09-08 13:39	Arco	Note Added: 0007147
2013-09-08 13:40	Arco	Note Edited: 0007147	View Revisions
2013-09-08 13:42	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000097
2013-09-08 13:43	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0001142
2013-09-08 13:44	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0001103
2013-09-08 13:45	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000343
2013-09-08 13:47	Arco	Note Edited: 0007147	View Revisions
2013-09-09 10:42	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000661
2013-09-09 10:44	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000485
2013-09-09 10:48	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0001160
2013-09-09 10:54	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000602
2013-09-09 10:56	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000557
2013-09-09 11:00	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000365
2013-09-09 20:09	Dusk	Relationship added	child of 0000098
2013-09-09 20:10	Dusk	Relationship replaced	parent of 0000098
2013-09-17 20:57	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0001509
2013-09-18 16:07	Watermelon	Relationship added	parent of 0000246
2013-10-05 17:48	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0007318
2013-10-05 18:05	Arco	Note Added: 0007319
2013-10-05 19:23	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0007320
2013-10-13 19:25	Blzut3	Summary	Backport ZDoom 2.4.1 => Backport ZDoom 2.5.0
2013-10-13 19:30	Arco	Relationship added	parent of 0000101
2013-10-13 19:30	Arco	Relationship added	parent of 0000528
2013-10-13 19:31	Arco	Note Added: 0007398
2013-10-18 20:02	Arco	Relationship added	parent of 0000169
2013-10-18 21:12	Arco	Relationship added	related to 0001046
2013-10-18 21:19	Dusk	Relationship replaced	parent of 0001046
2013-10-25 14:14	Arco	Relationship added	parent of 0001428
2013-10-26 12:31	Ivan	Note Added: 0007464
2013-10-28 19:58	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0007482
2013-11-02 12:21	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0007501
2013-11-02 16:04	Torr Samaho	Status	assigned => needs testing
2013-11-02 21:21	Ivan	Note Added: 0007504
2013-11-10 14:55	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0001566
2013-11-11 12:58	DevilHunter	Note Added: 0007540
2013-11-11 20:31	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0007541
2013-11-12 07:11	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0007543
2013-11-13 04:53	Blzut3	Note Added: 0007548
2013-11-13 04:54	Blzut3	Note Edited: 0007548	View Revisions
2013-11-13 07:11	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0007549
2013-11-13 12:28	Edward-san	Note Added: 0007550
2013-11-13 18:26	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0007554
2013-11-26 18:01	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000347
2013-12-30 08:27	Torr Samaho	Relationship added	parent of 0001274
2014-01-14 20:15	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0001604
2014-01-17 14:56	Blzut3	Relationship added	parent of 0000368
2014-02-19 14:59	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000771
2014-02-20 13:46	Dusk	Relationship deleted	parent of 0000771
2014-02-26 19:33	Qent	Relationship added	parent of 0001371
2014-03-07 13:01	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0000134
2014-06-11 23:03	Edward-san	Relationship added	parent of 0000714
2014-07-08 21:11	StrikerMan780	Note Added: 0009909
2014-10-15 22:19	StrikerMan780	Note Added: 0010602
2014-10-16 05:57	Torr Samaho	Note Added: 0010609
2014-10-16 22:29	Edward-san	Note Added: 0010613
2015-01-05 20:25	Dusk	Relationship deleted	parent of 0000557
2015-01-05 20:26	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0001344
2015-01-15 17:56	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0001247
2015-01-22 18:49	Edward-san	Relationship added	parent of 0000710
2015-03-16 01:14	Dusk	Note Added: 0011833
2015-03-16 01:14	Dusk	Status	needs testing => resolved
2015-03-16 01:14	Dusk	Fixed in Version	=> 2.0
2015-03-16 01:14	Dusk	Resolution	open => fixed
2015-03-16 01:15	Dusk	Note Edited: 0011833	View Revisions
2015-03-25 23:28	Dusk	Relationship added	parent of 0001784
2018-09-30 23:02	Blzut3	Status	resolved => closed

Notes
(0007139) Dusk (developer) 2013-09-08 09:59 edited on: 2013-09-08 10:00	I'll be linking more tickets as the backporting progresses. I'm searching for the tickets based on the commit descriptions so yeah. What to do about these tickets? Mark as resolved or needs testing as they are backported?

(0007142) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2013-09-08 10:25	I think if would be good if these are marked as "needs testing" once they are backported. BTW: 0000526, 0000470 and 0001233 should be backported by now. We'll have to resolve an issue with the compat flags before we release the first beta build with upgraded ZDoom base though.

(0007144) Dusk (developer) 2013-09-08 10:47 edited on: 2013-09-08 11:26	Quote BTW: 0000526, 0000470 and 0001233 should be backported by now. Right, I found these tickets by searching for keywords included in your commit descriptions. RSS feeds FTW! Also what's your stance on this ticket's visibility?

(0007146) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2013-09-08 11:26	I'm fine with making this ticket public.

(0007147) Arco (updater) 2013-09-08 13:39 edited on: 2013-09-08 13:47	Issues 0000097, 0001142, 0001103, and 0000343 also coincide with ZDoom 2.4.1. I think these issues should be treated as the same as the codebase get's updated. I'll find more that conflict with this issue shortly...

(0007318) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2013-10-05 17:48	I have reached 2.4.1 and think about continuing to 2.5.0.

(0007319) Arco (updater) 2013-10-05 18:05	Would it be applicable to release a beta to test the updated codebase and then upgrade as we go along? There are several tickets that need to be added onto the relationships that go with 2.5.0, and, I think, if we would be able to test the latest executable, any bugs that appear can be quickly dealt with as we go along with the updated Zdoom codebase.

(0007320) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2013-10-05 19:23	Here is a current snapshot of 2.0.

(0007398) Arco (updater) 2013-10-13 19:31	Added two tickets that correlate with 2.5.0. In the process of finding more.

(0007464) Ivan (reporter) 2013-10-26 12:31	There's one big change this version interests me that is not on that list, and it, as you probably guessed, has to do with polyobjects! The first few sentences from this thread explains it:'http://forum.zdoom.org/viewtopic.php?t=26755& [^]'

(0007482) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2013-10-28 19:58	Coincidentally I ported the first version of new polyobject code yesterday. It's completely untested and most likely very buggy. In particular it's unclear whether this works online or how it reacts to maps resets. I just transferred the old netcode and map reset stuff to the new code base. This build shows the current state.

(0007501) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2013-11-02 12:21	I have finally arrived at ZDoom 2.5.0 / GZDoom 1.5.0. Here is a first binary based on 2.5.0.

(0007504) Ivan (reporter) 2013-11-02 21:21	Good news is I just tested the polyobj changes on my test wad supplied in here =>'http://zandronum.com/tracker/view.php?id=1369 [^]' with the sector in the middle merged, and I must say they work perfectly without errors. However, the desync issue I have on the same link still applies.

(0007540) DevilHunter (reporter) 2013-11-11 12:58	Small Question, where does one find a copy of Gzdoom 1.5.0 for Testing?? I managed to only fine Gzdoom 1.5.3 which does have Zdoom 2.5.0 in it. Also, has Gameinfo been updated at all? No mods from Zdoom Forums are working, assuming they don't require anything above zdoom 2.5.0

(0007541) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2013-11-11 20:31	I compiled and uploaded GZDoom 880 which is what the current Zandronum 2.0 betas are based on.

(0007543) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2013-11-12 07:11	Talking about GZDoom 1.5.3. I noticed that there are numerous GZDoom releases that happened between ZDoom 2.5.0 and 2.6.0. How stable are those? I think it wouldn't be a problem to do some further updates.

(0007548) Blzut3 (administrator) 2013-11-13 04:53 edited on: 2013-11-13 04:54	I can't say much since I don't follow GZDoom releases. Although looking at just the 1.5.x series it doesn't look like Graf did much more than randomly decide to release snapshots. In the series I see the new menu code being added and the USDF dialog format. Both of these features took a little while to iron out. ZDoom releases are typically only done when the reported bug count is low (< 30). Obviously stable releases are more tested than the development versions (which is kind of odd that that is still the case given a lot of mods, (un)fortunately, target development versions). You're going to have to deal with back porting fixes either way, but if I had to bet, ZDoom releases are more stable.

(0007549) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2013-11-13 07:11	Does anybody else have experience with these GZDoom versions? The new menu code is something I thought about avoiding for 2.0.

(0007550) Edward-san (developer) 2013-11-13 12:28	Quote In the series I see the new menu code being added and the USDF dialog format. Don't forget FluidSynth (r895 onward) and textured automaps (r909 without gl, r912 with gl). Just for more info, USDF is in r901 and menu code in r952. Imho, Torr, if you want to avoid all these features, you can still backport till r894.

(0007554) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2013-11-13 18:26	I don't expect FluidSynth, textured automap or USDF (not completely sure about this one and of course it would have no netcode at first) to cause large conflicts with Zandronum's custom code additions. So I wouldn't mind having them as long as they work properly in our target GZDoom revision. For the menu code I know that large chunks of Zandronum specific code have to be rewritten (although I'd love to get rid of the old menu code...).

(0009909) StrikerMan780 (reporter) 2014-07-08 21:11	I'm going to guess that despite the rewrite that would be required for the new Menu Code, it would be a lot less of a pain than it was to write the original menus to begin with?

(0010602) StrikerMan780 (reporter) 2014-10-15 22:19	I see this is still marked as "Needs Testing". Would it be a good idea to make a list of specific additions from 2.5.0 that were introduced since 1.3 that need testing? (Allowing process of elimination)

(0010609) Torr Samaho (administrator) 2014-10-16 05:57	Yes, having such a list would be great.

(0010613) Edward-san (developer) 2014-10-16 22:29	I believe the version history from the zdoom wiki has enough info (I have no idea about gzdoom...). The changes which would interest are from the beginning of 2010 to before 2011. It's huge indeed :)

(0011833) Dusk (developer) 2015-03-16 01:14 edited on: 2015-03-16 01:15	All child tickets are resolved! Good job team! With that I think we can close this one too.