QUOTE(greentea039 @ Jul 26 2012, 12:53)

- Replaced operator '!=' and '==' with '!==' and '===' to avoid implicit type conversion.
I was personally very happy with this update.
It introduced a couple of bugs due to previous lazy coding but they're easy enough to fix.
Thanks again.
QUOTE(varst @ Jul 26 2012, 17:01)

As I appreciate you guys' work, you are also making the whole project as chaoic as ever.
1. I do think most people would like to have 1 patch in 2-3 weeks which contains several updates rather than 14 patches everyone which contains a bit of improvement. Just see how many patches you guys have posted in the last few days.
Just don't rush to name every update first: test it among yourselves, see if there's any problems, then publish that in a package. This has become a collaborated work, so please make it work like a collaborated work instead of several individual small improvements made by separate people.
As Ilirith said, people don't have to update everytime. I'd probably recommend waiting for a 1.1.* release (under the current version sys we've been using).
From now on though, I'll include a stable and bleeding edge release in the main post.
For us making the project chaotic, we're attempting to organize things by discussing changes, opening a GIT repo etc, but the problem lies with who has/wants access.
Not everyone wants to work in a team.
QUOTE(varst @ Jul 26 2012, 17:01)

2. Naming:
Most people don't even remember the 'major milestone' from v.4.0 and v.5.0. It's better if you guys naming as
1st and 2nd: Follow the major HV version (0.6.9 -> 6.9)
3rd: new feature packs
4th: bug fix/dev build
It should work better as people will then understand if their version matches the latest HV patch.
I would rather use mrttao's system of [MajorMilestones.Features.Fixes.MinorFixes].
What I can do though, is include a tag in the main post with which version of HV we're currently compatible with.
QUOTE(varst @ Jul 26 2012, 17:01)

3. A better way to explain what you have changed. Why do you guys need to ask the others every time something has changed?
Please remember, it's a program for players to use, not to confuse them.
On The Developer Side:
On the GIT I'm trying to be as descriptive as possible when updating but sometimes it's impossible to describe EXACTLY what's been changed, especially in larger updates.
As long as the commit isn't huge, you can see what's been changed in the diff.
Eventually I'd like to see comments in the code, ATM the code is as chaotic as we are.
On The User Side:
I agree but what would you suggest we do. We could announce only features being added and bugs being fixed and dumb some things down but that would leave dev's out of the loop (excl those with GIT access).
This post has been edited by GaryMcNabb: Jul 26 2012, 21:50