Preview RNs, Yes or No?

The reason why I never posted them to begin with was because Previews aren't final and are subject to change. However, I think it would be good to have them publicly available while preview is going on (LL sometimes posts them, sometimes does not) also it is sometimes good to know what was in a preview version and might be seen later, such as the Left-Click feature was originaly in 1.8 but was taken out before release, now we may have never seen that feature again, so would it be better to know it was almost in, or not to know at all?

I do not think we should keep track of most stuff that goes on in the preview grid, since it usualy "doesn't matter", however I say most stuff because you never know what important thing may happen in there. So this kind of relates to the Release Notes as well.

It may also be good to keep track of Preview Release Notes to see when exactly stuff gets added or does not. Such as in 1.8 (or .7 I forget which) there was stuff that was added between first Preview release and Final release. Would it be better to know on exact dates when a feature(s) was added or would it be better to have them in one clump as they are in the Final without dates, or both?

So thats my internal debate on adding Preview RNs. I am adding 1.9.1's for now, because if we do decide to keep them I would like to stay up to date. Also if we decide to do Previews I will add information on what the difference is between a Preview RN and a Final RN, splitting them into categories like that, where Preview is a header and Final (or something else) is another header, as I've started with 1.9.1 is a good idea I think. Oz Spade 06:04, 14 Apr 2006 (EDT)

Undocumented Features

So another question I just thought of is Undocumented features. Stuff thats left out of the Release Notes for some reason or another but is added in a version. For example, in 1.9.1, if you are able to turn on Vertex Shadows (which is currently buggy for some cards), there is a long awaited feature of being able to set a prim both shiny AND transparent, this is not mentioned in the RN at all (perhaps because it is buggy? But that is not in the Known Bugs). So how should we handle that? Ignore it and not add them? Or add them somehow? (Side note, Vertex Shadowing does knock down your fps 1 or 2 notches, and some people don't like how it makes things look, so it kinda sucks that shiny&transparent is tied to it, but if thats the only way they can do it... I personaly love how Vertex looks and will be leaving it on) Oz Spade 07:21, 14 Apr 2006 (EDT)

Eggy's response

Oz, more is better I say. Please add whatever you want :) My approach towards this project is as follows:

  • Collect objective data. Everything goes. The more the merrier. You never know what might turn out to be important, even if it does not seem "historical" today it may be interesting later :)
  • Sit on it. Clean it up a bit. Link it around to other stuff. Time will show what's relevant.
  • Revisit it, synthesize it, reflect upon it, elaborate slightly more subjective articles that draw from various sources to comment on the evolution of SL.

Feel free to take this "three-step program" to one of the help or policy pages, adapt it, tweak it, whatever.


Is this page really necessary since [[Category:Release_Notes]] (which, oddly, won't seem to link from here) contains a list of all the release notes pages anyway? It's just a matter of making sure the {{Category:Release Notes}} code is on each version's page. The intro paragraph and new "Links" section on Release Notes could be put on the category page. -Eep 19:48, 7 May 2006 (EDT)

One complaint I have against doing that is that the Category page doesn't look as neat without indented lists as the RN page has. Also I'm not big on the beginning letters things. These could possibly changed though, I'm not sure. Oz Spade 21:45, 8 May 2006 (EDT)

Perhaps alternate category templates could be created that don't show the letters... -Eep 06:06, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

Adjusted Layout

I've been tweaking the layout of the page the last couple of days, mainly to try and update the consitency, as well as just making it more aesthetic. Anyone have any thoughts on that? --Stryfe 15:08, 1 Dec 2006 (GMT-5)


WTF happened to the last two months of edits? --Stryfe 16:32, 27 Feb 2007 (EST)

Stryfe, sorry about this, it should only be a month though? See Talk:Main_Page#Roleback_of_Wiki_because_of_DB_corruption for details, but basicly there was a database corruption on the server and the last backup was a month old. Backups are now set to be twice a week. It sucks badly I know, but not much we can really do. :/ Sorry again! Oz Spade 00:13, 28 Feb 2007 (EST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.