How about "Leaking" an OpenMPT 1.17.3.00a version?

LPChip · December 18, 2006, 10:19:12

As many people here are interested in what the new OpenMPT will going to be, why not "leak" an alpha version, just so we can see what's going to be there?

An alpha version is known to be buggy, and even if there are features that don't work while they were, I'd not mind.

If you decide to post an alpha here, (I don't mind to host the file if thats the problem) we can make clear to not overwrite the old MPT version because this is just an alpha version of rev. 3.00.

What do you think?

Diamond · December 18, 2006, 12:56:00

I suspect the problem is more that there just isn't an alpha version.
http://forum.openmpt.org/index.php?topic=598.0&highlight=

LPChip · December 18, 2006, 13:17:11

Quote from: "Diamond"I suspect the problem is more that there just isn't an alpha version.
http://forum.openmpt.org/index.php?topic=598.0&highlight=

I know that Relabs already has a 3.00 build which he's building and testing. Im refering to "sneak-peak" to that version

Relabsoluness · December 18, 2006, 21:01:19

Well maybe that version number makes it sounds greater than it is; it might as well be descriped as 1.17.02.46. But anyway, I already feel ashamed for not having made the tuning things, which were discussed monts ago, available, so hopefully this won't take at least that long anymore.

speed-goddamn-focus · December 18, 2006, 21:19:20

I know the programmers have been very modest about the changes they made to begin with, but I kind of think people may not bother with downloading 1.17.02.045 over 1.16 cause the change is just like 0.01, which is just 1%! The "right" thing to do would be renaming the next release it to "official" 2.0, then 3.0 for the new file format (if anyone is still working on that?).

Also, afaik, Relabsoluness is the only active developer, is this true? If so, what is a good way to pick up a programmer interested in developing the most widely used freeware tracker? I can pose for pictures if that would help.

Relabsoluness · December 18, 2006, 21:43:25

Quote from: "speed-goddamn-focus"I know the programmers have been very modest about the changes they made to begin with, but I kind of think people may not bother with downloading 1.17.02.045 over 1.16 cause the change is just like 0.01, which is just 1%!

Indeed, the bigger the number, the better

Quote from: "speed-goddamn-focus"The "right" thing to do would be renaming the next release it to "official" 2.0, then 3.0 for the new file format (if anyone is still working on that?).

There exists tests builds with MPTm-module as one format beside IT's and XM's, but that's more like a renamed IT, not a fancy new file format.

Quote from: "speed-goddamn-focus"Also, afaik, Relabsoluness is the only active developer, is this true?

I don't think things are so badly.

rewbs · December 18, 2006, 21:52:07

I personally don't have any alpha code that compiles or that is worth showing off. I'll have some time over xmas, so there will another normal dev release some time in Jan with the usual combination of minor improvements and bug fixes from myself and Relabsoluness.

speed-goddamn-focus · December 18, 2006, 22:58:42

Quote from: "Relabsoluness"Indeed, the bigger the number, the better

I'm just saying such small verion number increments suggest tiny bugfixes rather than new features.

Diamond · December 18, 2006, 23:20:25

I had mentioned the possibility of trying to get some new developers a while back, but unfortunately I don't know the best way to go about this. I think that there's probably a way on Source Forge, but again I'm not sure. Anyone have a better clue? Personally, although I do believe that a new file format is very important, I also think that people would rather see more new features forthcoming in the meantime. I think it would be preferable to add more features and continue to hack the .it format than to not make any new major additions just because we're waiting for an XML file format that no one seems very motivated to work on anyway.

Snu · December 19, 2006, 02:58:14

Quote from: "speed-goddamn-focus"
Quote from: "Relabsoluness"Indeed, the bigger the number, the better :P
I'm just saying such small verion number increments suggest tiny bugfixes rather than new features.

i agree with you entirely sf, but perhaps we should save 2.0 for the new file format release, and maybe call the next actual release 1.2, or 1.3 or so.

as for the file format, as much as im looking forward to new features, we really need to stop screwing up the .it format. its possible we could create a 'transitional' format, but in the end that would really just create unecessary work and code...

so, why not make it as simple as possible?
for instance, instead of being all complex xml, just use seperate files for each 'block' of data (like each pattern could be a seperate txt file in a /patterns subdir), and those files themselves would just be a somewhat modified version of the clipboard paste data that mpt does.
and the instrument format could be sfz format, so no designing needed there, tho a loader would need to be made...

i eventually want to write a tracker, and i started doing designs on a file format sortof like that... but i really cant program very well, maybe i could help plan somehow? i really would love to help improve my favorite program.

Diamond · December 19, 2006, 03:26:49

Quote from: "Snu"as for the file format, as much as im looking forward to new features, we really need to stop screwing up the .it format.

Possibly, but it's the new file format
http://openmpt.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/FileFormatBlues
which is making Rewbs hesitate to add any major new features. Besides, MPT now has a save to pure .it option.