Re: How do the powers that be monitor this group for bug reports?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "koralis_arkhadian" <brentab@e...>
> Respectfully, that's not true. PCgen is discussed here, and manywonder
> people are awaiting 5.6.0.
> When upgrades happen that break old list files, it makes you
> why these decisions were made? Were there compelling reasons forRespectfully, your comments in that post were specifically about
> the changes? Or is it just so that "neat" features can be added?
CMP's data sets and support policies. While releated to PCGen, they
belong in CMP's forums, not here.
--- In email@example.com, "koralis_arkhadian" <brentab@e...>
> That's missing the point....a
> CMP datasets must be released hand-in-hand with the stable (not to
> call them bug-free) releases. Delays in one impact the other. As
> result it's been a LOOOOOONG time since I've been able to updatethe
> program to get rid of some annoying bugs that have since beenfixed,
> but not "stable."
> >otherwise, they'd be spending all of their time updating
> > their datasets.
> Isn't that why they asked for our money?
- It basically depends on how they were written by the publisher.
I would imagine any new sources publishers produce will be geared towards
3.5 and that's how they'll be coded for PCGen.
Older stuff was obviously created for 3.0 rules and so will be coded that
I would presume if OGL publishers put out conversion documents, we'd have a
set for each ruleset. :p
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay - Firesbane [mailto:firesbane2@...]
> Thank you for chiming in.
> I have a related question regarding outside sources. Are the
> bulk of them
> written to work with 3.0 or 3.5, or does it not matter.
> > Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 20:25:53 -0500
> > From: "Barak" <barak@...>
> >Subject: RE: Re: move on, nothing to see here
> >The upshot is that *both* are going to be supported to the
> best of our
> >ability. We will *not* forsake one for the other.
> >~ PCGen BoD
> >~ OS Silverback