Spotrep, Sitrep and other confusions

[afp 1]

So we have two version of the Alpha game, main version, more stable, updated less often and the dev version, updated almost daily and less stable. That's because changes in "dev version" are later included in "main version", if they perform well. You can switch (download) one or another with Steam options. So what we really need is just two threads in the "Alpha News" forum like:

1. Main Version changes log (not "branch", users dont know about branches and other vegetation)

2. Dev Version changes log

Of course, we can even have some "Dev Version discussions" thread as it is now. "Alpha" name is redundant here, I guess there will be always two versions, even efter release. This is what Steve Jobs would have done if he lived and worked for BIS. Not only him but any other normal person who can simply express what's going on.

Unfortunatelly, Steve Jobs is dead, so BIS keeps users informed like this:

- one thread in the "News" section of the forum named "Alpha Spotreps"

- one thread in the "News" section of the forum named "Alpha Sitreps" (no, its not the same name)

- each one of these points to an external page on ArmA 3 websites containing pretty much the same information.

- one more thread in "News" named "Alpha Development branch changelog".

- some other confusing threads in news like "ARMA 3 development blog & reveals" or "Arma 3 plans for 2013" where you can easily belive you can find log changes.

- "Development branch discussion" in "Alpha" forum

- Thread started by confused users who didnt understand where to look for and asks for details of the last changes.

I can understand this came in time and the changes were performed on the fly but its a bad and confusing diagram. It does not give to the forum a more "militaristic" look if this was the intention but its fixable.

[kremator 1064]

IMHO, we only need one branch ... DEV. As this is an alpha EVERYONE should be testing the DEV version. No excuse not to. In fact using the 'stable' branch is actually hurting development.

I do think there is too much hot air in the 'development blog & reveals'.

[blu3sman 11]

I thought long time Arma players had more "confusion resistance".

[old_painless 182]

IMHO, we only need one branch ... DEV. As this is an alpha EVERYONE should be testing the DEV version. No excuse not to. In fact using the 'stable' branch is actually hurting development.

I do think there is too much hot air in the 'development blog & reveals'.

Testwise, for particular features you have a very valid point.

The stable one primarily helps BI hone their skills in setting up a stable build, something that you need to exercise often to keep your bearings on what the development trunk may contain. Imagine if they did not, and the first time they had to generate a stable version was at release. Or when setting up the version to be shown at E3. Don't wanna gamble with those versions.

And we are provided the opportunity to give feedback on what that special build process generates. Important input for BI, just as the input they get on the development version.

[NeuroFunker 11]

not a big deal to me. Locked threads obviosly are the changelogs threads. All others are discussions, other arma 3 news. Takes you 5 minutes to figure out.