Jump to content

Aishagain

Resident
  • Content Count

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

About Aishagain

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. As I noted earlier, I wear a hair shirt briefly for allowing my irritation to show. However I repeat: "The point is that whatever date the Release Notes are referring to, they are inconsistent. In previous weeks they refer to Tuesdays, whereas this week's appears to reference a Monday." If someone can show me that my interpretation of that is wrong, all well and good. Qie's suspicion that LL's intent was twofold, that is to make particular server versions easier for the devs to track, AND to obfuscate the actual channel to prevent user bias is entirely credible, indeed I believe that was LL's stated purpose. The resultant confusion amongst many was probably NOT LL's intent, it is just the result of their action. As I've said before though, it's often not merely what LL do but the WAY they do it..
  2. @Nalates Urriah:Those comments are to varying degree correct but in one context irrelevant. The point is that whatever date the Release Notes are referring to, they are inconsistent. In previous weeks they refer to Tuesday's,whereas this week's appears to reference a Monday. @Miller Thor: Roll dates are by no means "known by everyone" they can vary even from the schedule posted on the Grid Status Page. Even then, the notes need to be consistent. The posted date of promotion of code to Main Server indeed must be correct. If it is not, it is quite simply wrong. This paragraph was deleted. It was irrelevant and inappropriate. I should not post before I am fully awake! It seems to me then, that this new system of nomenclature has been developed purely to assist the developers and we the users must muddle along as best we can with whatever information we can glean. We can no longer assume, it would seem, that the issue we are observing is software-related or a server or client glitch. It still needs to be consistent.
  3. @Nalates Urriah: Well, I'd sort of assumed that since the Notes are "Release" notes and the previous weeks' dates on Main Server "releases" were Tuesdays, that it should be a Tuesday this week as well. If the previous note were not compiled until Tuesday, than gives them very little time for testing, does it not? If they were called Compilation Notes, I'd agree with you, but they aren't. But hang on...the actual software identifier gives the compile/creation date surely? No, I am sure they are "supposed" to be release or roll dates, so my comment stands.
  4. The dating on the Release Pages now is different but STILL WRONG! The Release to Main Server of ..528 MUST have been 15th Oct not 14th! Yes the week began with Monday the 14th but for God's Sake,. LL Main Server restart day is the 15th, RC channel day is 16th. Now I may be hard of thinking but the notes state the release date not the date of the "week commencing...", don't they? The previous dates given for the Main Server Releases are both Tuesdays, so why now a Monday? It makes no sense! It's not complicated, it is easy to get this right, assuming any thought is given to what you're typing. How is this sort of stupidity supposed to give us ANY confidence in LL?
  5. @Nalates Urriah: Noble sentiment and valid up to a point, but my take is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And really the previous set up WASN'T broken. But more....this Release Notes set up that has been introduced would not be so bad if the Lindens would only ensure that the Release dates were correct as Cam suggested for the roll onto each channel, ie Main or RC! I tend to think there are more aspects to these changes than meet our eyes presently (notwithstanding paranoia). As an aside, how much longer are BlueSteel, LeTigre and Magnum sandboxes going to be so-named? Their respective channels officially no longer exist! Are older LMs still going to be valid, I wonder, because I have to assume that Search by such names will not be valid for long. It's like so many things the Lindens do, the idea and principle is good but the application doesn't quite work. It's not WHAT they do but the WAY they do it!
  6. @MBeatrix: I could not have put it better.
  7. Well, if this screed of confused and anxious posts isn't enough to show the LL Operations Team that these revised nomenclatures are a BAD MOVE, I cannot imagine anything persuading them to revert to a more comprehensible system. This was supposed to help make reporting less vague? On the evidence above I'd say "Bin it Oz, it's not going to fly".
  8. @Miller Thor: I may be thick, but how do you KNOW 531528 WAS rolled to Magnum, since it doesn't exist as such, any more? Knowing the date of first testing and Aditi is of little or no use, in my opinion. SL is run on Agni.
  9. @Inara Pey: 715 was the version running on Main Server for the past week. Your assessment, if correct will make correct reporting and assessment of server versions a lot more confusing. I really hope that is NOT the case. We really should be able to see the date on which a version previously released on an RC channel is promoted to Main. As an aside, my home, on Main for the last few years, has not yet rolled either, so, like you, I am waiting a little anxiously, since it has always previously rolled by now. ETA: My home has just rolled, so we're still on Main, so I'd guess you are also, Inara.
  10. For once (fanfare), @Miller Thor is correct! As far as the dates in the release notes are concerned they are misleading. Simply, they do not show the correct dates. Given LL's recent record, I don't pay much attention to the dates on the Release Note page. They'll get it sorted eventually, I hope.
  11. Oh for goodness' sake, Miller, have YOU nothing better to do? The use of "stickies" for their Restart schedule post is a standard practice for LL. For my part it was largely irrelevant, but for others, maybe not. Either way it was a gentle prod of a relatively inexperienced Linden, who, I am relieved to say, has much more of a sense of humour than you.
  12. @Bugsly Linden: Your post needs a sticky so folk don't need to scroll down to find this thread. Also; @Kyrah Abattoir: You really need to ask? LL have known this for years, but the fix is... awkward. Watch the allocated memory on any highly scripted region!
  13. Interesting one, this. There was definitely an issue with the asset server at some point last UK night, we had many incidents of "Failed to rez Object" if the object in question was in inventory and yet most folk could create ands rez a simple cube...take that into inventory and try to re rez it and ....."Tar Baby, he say "Failed to....". Also Live chat was unreachable despite the scheduled maintenance having been officially completed. I raised a ticket over the issue and it has had no response in over 12 hours. Less than one hour later having successfully relogged my inventory re-synced and lo and behold all seemed well, though others that had remained online were still having issues. So what were the Lindens doing with the asset server? We may never know. Edit: OK so I don't know my US timezones, live chat closes at 11pm BST. However this asset server BUG was much worse than we realised last night. May be LL will fix it tonight.
  14. @Whirly Fizzle: No, Whirly, I HAVE seen instances of the issue to which you refer. This is quite different and on a couple of occasions the item HAS detached so I guess that would simply be considered a delayed effect. The attachment that is unremovable is not affected by the refresh and is still active until detached. If, as happened twice it is a box, I can still obtain copies of the contents until it is detached. I suspect that the mechanism involved is similar and may have some common elements, but it is NOT the same issue. for further clarification, my inventory on this account is fewer than 25,000, but I use other than the base folders
×
×
  • Create New...