21 replies to this topic

[Dawnlight]

What do you think is the "magic number" or the ZC2.5 build number that will have no bugs at all for a Perfect Zelda Classic 2.5?

[Nimono]

I choose E: None of the above.

Perfectly-bugfree programs is just a pipe dream. Nothing humans can ever make will be "perfect". They'll always have bugs. You can't avoid it. So yeah, don't try to prove me wrong- The other Devs have accepted it, and so have other people... You should accept it, too!

[Evile]

Hopefully around the 700's, but I don't want them to rush it. Just remove all the bugs and get it stable.

[The Satellite]

Nulled. It'll happen when it happens.

[Alestance]

your impatience is quite apparent

DN says when it gets to the point where the only bugs left are minor, or almost unnoticeable, it will be released as the next beta. Upon more testing, the final version will be out. Patiences is a virtue... wish the people who screamed "FEATURE FREEZE" could've understood that.

[Theryan]

I choose E: None of the above.

E would be 1000+.

Nulled. I dunno. It'll happen when the devs finish, I guess.

[Mitchfork]

10 bucks the stable version is right after b744.

I hope for a release as soon as possible, but I would rather have stability than a full version that crashes every 10 minutes, know what I mean?

[Colin]

Phht, you guys are no fun, he wanted to know what you think the number will be, not when ZC is done when it is done... make a guess at least, it'll be more fun that way, maybe you'll be right...

Me, I choose... 801-900, lets say... 843.

Edited by Nuvo, 08 September 2007 - 04:06 PM.

[Dawnlight]

Phht, you guys are no fun, he wanted to know what you think the number will be, not when ZC is done when it is done... make a guess at least, it'll be more fun that way, maybe you'll be right...

Me, I choose... 801-900, lets say... 843.

I know it stinks to be misunderstanded .

[The Satellite]

I really don't have a choice. I don't really think it matters. I'm content with 2.10.

But you want me to take a pick, with my luck, it'll end in 66. (for those who don't know, 66 is equivalent to 744 for me.)

EDIT: I believe the word is "misunderstood," not "misunderstanded."

So I would choose 766. Nulled, though.

Edited by The Satellite, 08 September 2007 - 04:27 PM.

[ShadowTiger]

The thing is, it's very easy for bugs to crop back in through fixing other bugs. It's sort of like reorganizing a closet. When you move something to get at something behind it, it'll disrupt who-knows how many other things in the nearby vicinity. We're lucky that it's not literally a rube-Goldberg device-like chain reaction all of the time!

My vote doesn't matter anyway, so I just voted for the first one. Let the optimist reign.

[Linkus]

Eh. Really, with the way ZC's coding criss-crosses with its references that connect several variables together, I wouldn't expect that everything planned will work completely; Sometimes a program can get too big for any more additions in the current build base, which ZC 2 has done. I wouldn't expect a really good ZC until 2.40 or 2.50 (or 2.70 or 2.80 for those who think the final build will be called 2.50)comes out.

[Takuya]

Well, I would say that to squash all really major bugs, it'll probably be in the 701-800 range, since there are lots of bugs. Plus, fixing other bugs might make other bugs appear. I'd say that range, and right now... well, things are going decently enough. We are kicking ass and squashing bugs </Regginator>

[SpikeReynolds]

I'd say 777. That's my lucky number and with my luck that'll happen.

[Moonbread]

Then I say 666 *gets slapped by Matthew*

Though, I see no reason for this topic, really. What's the point trying to guess? And, likewise, there will be no bugfree version. We just wait for a really stable one, whether it's 666, or over 9000.