dmarkwick 261 Posted August 30, 2010 Can I make the suggestion that betas, as well as their build number, include their base build number also? So if I'm patched to 1.54 and I'm looking for a new beta I can identify from the name that 1.54 is the base build, with the beta build number being appended. 154_1234 for example. Just a small thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MavericK96 0 Posted August 30, 2010 I guess that makes some level of sense, but as long as you know what the 1.54 build number is (72967 I believe) you can just figure out if the latest betas are newer by the larger build number. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dwarden 1125 Posted September 1, 2010 you mean in server browser list or where ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kremator 1065 Posted September 1, 2010 Shouldn't beta patch always be the latest build and therefore the latest base build anyway ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted September 2, 2010 Shouldn't beta patch always be the latest build and therefore the latest base build anyway ? I note that the last official patch and the last beta were released at around the same time, but I don't know which is the latest build. Not by the version numbers anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MavericK96 0 Posted September 2, 2010 In-game, in the lower right corner, you can see what the build number is. It shows up as x.xx.xxxxx. For instance, the latest build is 1.54.72967. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brainbug 10 Posted September 3, 2010 He probably means on the beta patch page and in the file name, where it only says "build so-and-so". Personally, I got used to saving the patch installers in folders called e.g. "1.54.72888" for a release patch or "1.54.72967_beta" for a beta, that helps keeping track (I keep a few patches just in case I want to roll back for some reason). Also it would be nice to have a timestamp (including timezone of course) on the beta page to see when each version was released. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmarkwick 261 Posted September 3, 2010 He probably means on the beta patch page and in the file name, where it only says "build so-and-so". Personally, I got used to saving the patch installers in folders called e.g. "1.54.72888" for a release patch or "1.54.72967_beta" for a beta, that helps keeping track (I keep a few patches just in case I want to roll back for some reason). Also it would be nice to have a timestamp (including timezone of course) on the beta page to see when each version was released. Yep that's exactly it :) Even if it's only the zip file that has the name, that'd be good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
50.cal 10 Posted September 8, 2010 Really I don't see any benefit changing such a futile thing now. From my experience I can say these kind of changes just give more room for errors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yoma 0 Posted September 8, 2010 I'm not against something like this, but probably addonsync and other tools would need changes to correctly pick up the new beta's... Not really an argument not to do it though. What does count as an argument is that time spent for this would be better spent elsewhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nkenny 1057 Posted September 8, 2010 If its not broke, why fix it? -k Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
