People are looking for an easy way to link optional plugins to their projects that is separate from the OptDep tag that they can use right now. OptDep seems more like something you would do for SharedMedia, whereas a plugin provides more features directly to the addon's core.
Its kinda like what Ackis said about ATSW, Cauldron, and Skillet those add enhanced features to ARL, but are full and complete addons so therefore should be OptDeps. However, some things are purely a plugin for another addon and have no standalone abilities. And it is those non-standalone things that need a classification to link them to a master project.
At least, thats what I got out of this thread. I hope I didn't horribly miss the target.
I stated that EVERYTHING I posted in there can be done via the web-interface.
All you do is come around here and hate on wowace and curseforge, you don't even try with it anymore. Read before QQing.
Honestly, I stopped reading when I saw "pkgmeta" again. Nothing I've ever seen on the CurseForge main page, or on the project management pages, indicates that there is some web analogue for a repository metadata file. Don't act all indignant because people aren't aware of some hidden feature.
As for "hating on", when websites is as frustrating to use as Curse.com and CurseForge.com are, yeah, I'm going to complain. I've tried offering constructive feedback for years, before and after the WoWAce merger and CurseForge launch, and nothing has changed. In fact, things have gotten worse. Quite frankly, I feel rather trapped at this point, as after having my addons on Curse for years, the amount of harassment I'd have to deal with from users that would ensue if I removed my addons from Curse would hardly be worth it.
Let's keep it civil guys. Can someone please give me a brief, even headed recap of what the issue actually is?
I'm the OP. What I wrote in the first post should sum it up, as well as a ticket that's been open since last July. We're looking for some form of action on that ticket and topic; either bringing back the feature or an explanation that it's been permanently killed off.
The rest of the thread is just arguing over other ways (which aren't feasible for some of curse/curseforge userbase) of doing similar things.
I already explained why its been permanently killed off. Having files with different content in the same project will break the Curse Client. The correct way to handle it would be to create new projects for each submodule and have them linked to from the main project page, or just include them all in one zip and use '## DefaultState: off' in the toc to keep them from being enabled by default.
I already explained why its been permanently killed off. Having files with different content in the same project will break the Curse Client. The correct way to handle it would be to create new projects for each submodule and have them linked to from the main project page, or just include them all in one zip and use '## DefaultState: off' in the toc to keep them from being enabled by default.
As I said before: after looking at how WoWI does it, I don't think people are really demanding multiple files for the same project so much as they're just asking for the site to provide a better mechanism to show the relationships between plugins and the addons so that users can more easily find the collection of addon and plugins that enhance that addon. I haven't yet heard that this cannot be implemented by the people running Curse, so there's no need for the pound-a-stake-in-the-sand / this-is-how-it-is-deal-with-it attitudes yet.
People can talk, and things can change for the better. Think outside the box and be a little open-minded, people. Sheesh :p
The created or uploaded out of order issue is more of a "you're doing it wrong" when it comes to manual uploads and SVN. For Git and Hg they should be ordered by the tag date (commit date for alphas) and not by when the packager created them.
For plugins and optional modules if you add additional relationships for them I think it would be best to have official modules that are specified from the main projects relationships and unofficial modules which are simply reverse relationships from attributes of the modules themselves.
For Git and Hg they should be ordered by the tag date (commit date for alphas) and not by when the packager created them.
This was not the case in the past, has it since been fixed? With git, if the tag is annotated then the tag date should be used, if not then the commit date of the commits that is tagged should be used.
The created or uploaded out of order issue is more of a "you're doing it wrong" when it comes to manual uploads and SVN.
Fine, then, we're doing it wrong. But when we make a mistake and upload things out of order, we can't fix our own mistake. We have to delete all our files and re-upload them, which then means another round of waiting for file approval.
I already explained why its been permanently killed off.
Well, what I'm thinking there is that instead of allowing you to set a default download, just allowing you to rearrange the files. Same affect in the long run, but not subject to the same abuses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumIts kinda like what Ackis said about ATSW, Cauldron, and Skillet those add enhanced features to ARL, but are full and complete addons so therefore should be OptDeps. However, some things are purely a plugin for another addon and have no standalone abilities. And it is those non-standalone things that need a classification to link them to a master project.
At least, thats what I got out of this thread. I hope I didn't horribly miss the target.
Honestly, I stopped reading when I saw "pkgmeta" again. Nothing I've ever seen on the CurseForge main page, or on the project management pages, indicates that there is some web analogue for a repository metadata file. Don't act all indignant because people aren't aware of some hidden feature.
As for "hating on", when websites is as frustrating to use as Curse.com and CurseForge.com are, yeah, I'm going to complain. I've tried offering constructive feedback for years, before and after the WoWAce merger and CurseForge launch, and nothing has changed. In fact, things have gotten worse. Quite frankly, I feel rather trapped at this point, as after having my addons on Curse for years, the amount of harassment I'd have to deal with from users that would ensue if I removed my addons from Curse would hardly be worth it.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI'm the OP. What I wrote in the first post should sum it up, as well as a ticket that's been open since last July. We're looking for some form of action on that ticket and topic; either bringing back the feature or an explanation that it's been permanently killed off.
The rest of the thread is just arguing over other ways (which aren't feasible for some of curse/curseforge userbase) of doing similar things.
As I said before: after looking at how WoWI does it, I don't think people are really demanding multiple files for the same project so much as they're just asking for the site to provide a better mechanism to show the relationships between plugins and the addons so that users can more easily find the collection of addon and plugins that enhance that addon. I haven't yet heard that this cannot be implemented by the people running Curse, so there's no need for the pound-a-stake-in-the-sand / this-is-how-it-is-deal-with-it attitudes yet.
People can talk, and things can change for the better. Think outside the box and be a little open-minded, people. Sheesh :p
* The non-normal case where your files are created or uploaded out of order
* Specifying plugins and optional modules.
Am I missing anything?
For plugins and optional modules if you add additional relationships for them I think it would be best to have official modules that are specified from the main projects relationships and unofficial modules which are simply reverse relationships from attributes of the modules themselves.
This was not the case in the past, has it since been fixed? With git, if the tag is annotated then the tag date should be used, if not then the commit date of the commits that is tagged should be used.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumFine, then, we're doing it wrong. But when we make a mistake and upload things out of order, we can't fix our own mistake. We have to delete all our files and re-upload them, which then means another round of waiting for file approval.
Then close the ticket, please.