Fomenting Mutiny

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               

3RavensMore wrote...

As a builder, what AD has said so far is very appealing -- creating a new iteration of CEP, while maintaining as much backward compatibility is possible.  As possible is the key word I think; some incompatibility, if documented, would be fine.  A complete reorganization and re-thinking of CEP as henesua suggests sounds far more like an all new project redone from the ground up.  It would have no real relation or compatibility to CEP as it is now, and while that does have its appeal, sounds like a far larger project that what's AD suggested.  Far larger projects have a habit of never seeing the light of day...  Just something to consider.

It's possible to take both approaches at the same time.  It would just take some more busy-work to get and keep organized.

"Classic CEP 3" - use the CEP 2.4 haks plus CEP 3 "new content" and "top" haks above the existing CEP haks.

plus

"Modular CEP 3" - the existing content shuffled into new, modular haks based on content type, then using the same 2da files as the CEP 3 "top" haks.  Technically still backwards compatible...the existing content would still all be there if module builders choose to swap in all the modular haks in their module if they used CEP previously, since all the content would still be there.  It would just mean a new larger download for them and their players.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               And yes, multiple people have basically called for this type of action for a while.  I did not support it before because it did look like there was still work happening on the CEP.  However, after almost another year and a half since that time, and at least two (or is it three now) years since the last update to CEP...I couldn't sit idly by any longer.

Even if this ends up being just a few updates more (which I hope it isn't), it's still much more progress than we've seen.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_KlatchainCoffee]

               Not an expert here, but it would be nice to see CEP in a better organised state, so there may be something to Henesua's idea if  arranging the content in a modular format is not too difficult or too big of a 'mammoth' to tackle. Could a top hak really make it backwards-compatible with previous CEP incarnations?

Also, I like the idea of some of the poorer models being updated - and Q-compatibility, of course.


I would love to help out with this, though not sure I can do much more than test.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_3RavensMore]

               Ahhh!  That sounds even better. 
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Hekatoncheires]

               I gave up on CEP years ago for the same reason I gave up on my PRC aspirations; the bloat was unmanageable for me. However, I recall the time when it was -the- piece of custom content. Having a more streamlined, clean CEP would work out well for the community '>.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_meaglyn]

               I like this idea a lot.  The modular version especially seems like an excellent thing. I can be available to help as needed.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tarot Redhand]

               I too like the modular approach. However, I wonder if it isn't time to cull some of the older content that is way past its sell-by date at the same time? To have a leaner, but higher quality compilation like the original CEP was supposed to be. Mind you there is one word that strikes fear into my heart. Documentation. Currently appalling. There isn't even a catalogue. And before anyone asks - NO I am not volunteering. *I* know just how much work it takes when you know what it is you are describing. When it is by someone else (OK Rolo when you get back from the flu, you are excepted), Eeeeek!

TR
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Tarot Redhand, 14 janvier 2014 - 02:26 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bluebomber4evr]

               I don't think it's a good idea to cull content, as that would break compatibility with earlier versions. Yes, there's clearly some content that should never have been added, but it's simpler to just ignore that stuff and not use it in your module/server.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_TheCapulet2]

               This gets my seal of approval.  After reading through all the CEP drama last night and touching on it on the CEP forums, I'm glad to see some real action, and by someone we can all trust to do something awesome with the project.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

Tarot Redhand wrote...

I too like the modular approach. However, I wonder if it isn't time to cull some of the older content that is way past its sell-by date at the same time? To have a leaner, but higher quality compilation like the original CEP was supposed to be. Mind you there is one word that strikes fear into my heart. Documentation. Currently appalling. There isn't even a catalogue. And before anyone asks - NO I am not volunteering. *I* know just how much work it takes when you know what it is you are describing. When it is by someone else (OK Rolo when you get back from the flu, you are excepted), Eeeeek!

TR

This is why I suggest using a Wiki that the community can use for documentation, and project management. This spreads the work load out, and includes the entire community in the project. Doing so would bring the Community back to CEP which has been sorely lacking for far too long.

Also I must say that I am underwhelmed when I hear an interest in continuing to work with CEP 2 but calling it CEP 3. I think that is a mistake. If this is just about breathing life back into the existing CEP project, then do another point release of CEP 2. Thats fine. Some movement is better than none sure.

But do not call it CEP 3. The name CEP 3 should be reserved for a new direction with the project.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

Bluebomber4evr wrote...

I don't think it's a good idea to cull content, as that would break compatibility with earlier versions. Yes, there's clearly some content that should never have been added, but it's simpler to just ignore that stuff and not use it in your module/server.

Don't let the obsession with backwards compatibility hang like a millstone over the project.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bluebomber4evr]

               

henesua wrote...

Bluebomber4evr wrote...

I don't think it's a good idea to cull content, as that would break compatibility with earlier versions. Yes, there's clearly some content that should never have been added, but it's simpler to just ignore that stuff and not use it in your module/server.

Don't let the obsession with backwards compatibility hang like a millstone over the project.

The last time a CEP update broke compatibility (2.0) it was a regular cluster**** and that didn't even cut content. I know as a builder, I wouldn't want to have to yank out all of the CEP haks and redo all of my 2da files and rebuild the huge module all over again like I did when 2.0 came out. I did that once because the understanding was it wouldn't happen again, I'm not doing it again.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_KlatchainCoffee]

               

henesua wrote...


But do not call it CEP 3. The name CEP 3 should be reserved for a new direction with the project.

So far the general consensus seems to be leaning towards a more fundamental sort of chage (modular approach, universal compatibility, etc) rather than tinkering at the edges. CEP 3 may not be that unsuitable if that's the case.


Edit: In fact modular approach can help make it backwards-compatible - just stick all the sub-standard stuff you would keep ONLY for compatibility reasons into a separate hak, which the new builders would simply ignore and the old ones use to avoid breakage. Could it work like that?
               
               

               

                     Modifié par KlatchainCoffee, 14 janvier 2014 - 03:19 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bluebomber4evr]

               

KlatchainCoffee wrote...

henesua wrote...


But do not call it CEP 3. The name CEP 3 should be reserved for a new direction with the project.

So far the general consensus seems to be leaning towards a more fundamental sort of chage (modular approach, universal compatibility, etc) rather than tinkering at the edges. CEP 3 may not be that unsuitable if that's the case.


Edit: In fact modular approach can help make it backwards-compatible - just stick all the sub-standard stuff you would keep ONLY for compatibility reasons into a separate hak, which the new builders would simply ignore and the old ones use to avoid breakage. Could it work like that?

Yeah, I think that's a reasonable compromise
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_3RavensMore]

               

Bluebomber4evr wrote...

henesua wrote...

Bluebomber4evr wrote...

I don't think it's a good idea to cull content, as that would break compatibility with earlier versions. Yes, there's clearly some content that should never have been added, but it's simpler to just ignore that stuff and not use it in your module/server.

Don't let the obsession with backwards compatibility hang like a millstone over the project.

The last time a CEP update broke compatibility (2.0) it was a regular cluster**** and that didn't even cut content. I know as a builder, I wouldn't want to have to yank out all of the CEP haks and redo all of my 2da files and rebuild the huge module all over again like I did when 2.0 came out. I did that once because the understanding was it wouldn't happen again, I'm not doing it again.

I second Bluebomber4evr here.  If it's useless for existing worlds without monumental changes to those worlds, what exactly is the point of even touching CEP as it stands now?  2da line changes aren't a big deal, but losing content would be.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par 3RavensMore, 14 janvier 2014 - 03:22 .