Talk:Java Edition version history/Archive 6

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive of past discussions.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1.5.2[edit]

Is the 1.5.2 protocol same as 1.5/1.5.1? If so, it should be added in italics like it has for 1.5.1. -- Numbermaniac - T - C 02:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think that 1.5.2 is compatible with 1.5 or 1.5.1, but I'm not sure. --70.181.68.226 03:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I cannot get on to 1.5.1 servers with 1.5.2. Cultist O 04:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. --70.181.68.226 04:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I added a note on the page at Version history#1.5.2. Thanks!! -- Numbermaniac - T - C 05:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. --70.181.68.226 05:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, can we have the Issues page back, please?[edit]

The issue tracker is a pain to browse and is full of duplicate tickets.

I would also like to stress that this is a wiki, which is supposed to document everything worth knowing about Minecraft, including all discovered glitches, bugs, and whatever else have you.

The Issues page obviously shouldn't function as a place to report bugs, but that's not the point. The point would be to list them so they can be easily browsed through. E-102 Gamma 05:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Strongly disagree The massive amount of duplicates is a minor inconvenience compared to the mess that was the issue pages. The tracker mods do a decent job of linking duplicates to the appropriate main issues. Not only that, but anything reported on the wiki means nothing. Problems will not be looked into since Mojang will not see them. Kanegasi C 05:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 Definitely not per Kanegasi. The issue tracker is the official one that Mojang checks. They wouldn't check the ones reported on the wiki. –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 06:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Once again, it wouldn't be for the purpose of reporting bugs, but rather, documenting them. It would be redundant if it was for reporting bugs. This should be heavily emphasized on the Issues page itself if it were to be resurrected. E-102 Gamma 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
If there's one thing I've learned from editing this wiki for the last year and a half, it's that people are stupid and don't read directions. If we have an Issues page, people will try to report bugs on it. Bugs that cause particularly notable (mis)behavior (such as the 'black lighting' bug, or the one that prevents zombie sieges from working) can be mentioned on the appropriate pages, but I don't see an advantage in trying to maintain a centralized bug list again. -- Orthotope talk 19:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Correct. Kanegasi added a note (which I expanded) to the Block of Coal's trivia about not mentioning Minecraft 2.0, yet users still did it. Most talk pages also say that it is only for discussing the relative main page. How many people don't follow that?! –- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 21:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

So, to summarize the points of view of those opposed, the Issues page must remain dead and buried because otherwise, people would try to use it as a page to report bugs on.

I'm left to wonder what the big deal is if people fail to understand that the page is for documentation purposes and attempt to use it to report bugs on. Isn't it better for some newbie to list a bug here than submit the 38th ticket on that common bug that everybody knows about on the bug tracker? Or put a bug on the list that wasn't previously known about rather than not post it anywhere at all? Whatever is put on the Issues page instead of the bug tracker by one person can be simply transcribed to the bug tracker by another. Not that I believe that reporting bugs on the Issues page should be encouraged, but I fail to see how it's the end of the world if people try to report bugs on the Issues page.

Furthermore, how does one differentiate between reporting a bug and documenting a bug? Does it simply depend on whether or not the bug has already been submitted to the issue tracker, or is there more to it than that?

Forgive me if I've missed something obvious, but I cannot figure out how to browse through a list of confirmed, non-duplicated tickets in the bug tracker. The advantage of the Issues page would be its simplicity, as opposed to the labyrinthine intricacy of the issue tracker.

TL;DR: What's the big deal if people try to report bugs on the Issues page? Somebody else can put the on the issue tracker where they belong. Also, the issue tracker is too complicated. E-102 Gamma 02:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The big deal is that the issues page here is little more than a massive duplication of effort for very little, if any, gain. If you want to document bugs, post them to the issue tracker; even after they've been resolved - and even if they are resolved as dupes - they remain in the tracker for all to see. Atlassian is also designed specifically for the purpose of reporting and tracking bugs, so it's got all sorts of tools that would be infeasible or impossible to add here on the wiki. I also argue that reporting issues here is just as complicated, if not more so, than reporting them on Atlassian, since not only do you have to keep track of various details related to the bug, but you also have to contend with wikimarkup, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the bug; it's just additional overhead. The issues page isn't coming back, and I say good riddance to bad rubbish. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 04:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Your point is seen well enough, though I was talking more about the difficulty of browsing the bugs that affect such-and-so a version of Minecraft rather than the difficulty of reporting them. But since I just figured out how to search the issue tracker for specific stuff, and I think I'd say I prefer it to a static list of bugs on one page, so I personally don't really care what becomes of the Issues page any more. E-102 Gamma 05:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)