Forum:The 3.5.0 source code leak - Revision history

Ilmari Karonen: added to next version

2015-02-05T17:11:53Z

added to next version

Crawldragon: Adding my two cents to the discussion

2014-10-26T04:09:58Z

Adding my two cents to the discussion

Paxed at 05:01, 24 September 2014

2014-09-24T05:01:13Z

Darth l33t: Created page with "{{Forumheader|Watercooler}} How is the wiki going to handle this incident..."

2014-09-23T21:16:24Z

Created page with "{{Forumheader|Watercooler}}  How is the wiki going to handle this incident..."

New page

{{Forumheader|Watercooler}}



How is the wiki going to handle this incident? I could put up a summary of the most noticeable changes, and I'd love to see what other people can find as well. Even better would be putting up the source itself on the wiki, marked up like the official releases. I'm not sure if that's reasonable, though; since the code wasn't officially released, I'm not sure if the NetHack GPL applies to it. At the very minimum we could update the compiling instructions with any changes that apply to the leaked code. --[[User:Darth l33t|Darth l33t]] ([[User talk:Darth l33t|talk]]) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:11, 5 February 2015
Line 7:		Line 7:

	I do think that it's worth at least covering here. At the very least we can have a few articles about new features in the leaked source code, even if they're unfinished. I think it shows an uncharacteristic lack of curiosity if a wiki doesn't cover a big event like this. - [[User:Crawldragon\|Crawldragon]] ([[User_talk:Crawldragon\|talk]]\|[http://roguebasin.com/index.php?title=User:Crawldragon rog]) 04:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)		I do think that it's worth at least covering here. At the very least we can have a few articles about new features in the leaked source code, even if they're unfinished. I think it shows an uncharacteristic lack of curiosity if a wiki doesn't cover a big event like this. - [[User:Crawldragon\|Crawldragon]] ([[User_talk:Crawldragon\|talk]]\|[http://roguebasin.com/index.php?title=User:Crawldragon rog]) 04:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I just added [[Next_version#Leaked_source_code\|a section about it]] to our [[next version]] article. Improvements are welcome! —[[User:Ilmari Karonen\|Ilmari Karonen]] ([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen\|talk]]) 17:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:09, 26 October 2014
Line 5:		Line 5:
	How is the wiki going to handle this incident? I could put up a summary of the most noticeable changes, and I'd love to see what other people can find as well. Even better would be putting up the source itself on the wiki, marked up like the official releases. I'm not sure if that's reasonable, though; since the code wasn't officially released, I'm not sure if the NetHack GPL applies to it. At the very minimum we could update the compiling instructions with any changes that apply to the leaked code. --[[User:Darth l33t\|Darth l33t]] ([[User talk:Darth l33t\|talk]]) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)		How is the wiki going to handle this incident? I could put up a summary of the most noticeable changes, and I'd love to see what other people can find as well. Even better would be putting up the source itself on the wiki, marked up like the official releases. I'm not sure if that's reasonable, though; since the code wasn't officially released, I'm not sure if the NetHack GPL applies to it. At the very minimum we could update the compiling instructions with any changes that apply to the leaked code. --[[User:Darth l33t\|Darth l33t]] ([[User talk:Darth l33t\|talk]]) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
	:It's not a release, so I think the source should not be on the wiki. Perhaps one article, like "NetHack source leak" or something like that documenting it. --[[User:Paxed\|paxed]] ([[User talk:Paxed\|talk]]) 05:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)		:It's not a release, so I think the source should not be on the wiki. Perhaps one article, like "NetHack source leak" or something like that documenting it. --[[User:Paxed\|paxed]] ([[User talk:Paxed\|talk]]) 05:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
		+
		+	I do think that it's worth at least covering here. At the very least we can have a few articles about new features in the leaked source code, even if they're unfinished. I think it shows an uncharacteristic lack of curiosity if a wiki doesn't cover a big event like this. - [[User:Crawldragon\|Crawldragon]] ([[User_talk:Crawldragon\|talk]]\|[http://roguebasin.com/index.php?title=User:Crawldragon rog]) 04:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:01, 24 September 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:

	How is the wiki going to handle this incident? I could put up a summary of the most noticeable changes, and I'd love to see what other people can find as well. Even better would be putting up the source itself on the wiki, marked up like the official releases. I'm not sure if that's reasonable, though; since the code wasn't officially released, I'm not sure if the NetHack GPL applies to it. At the very minimum we could update the compiling instructions with any changes that apply to the leaked code. --[[User:Darth l33t\|Darth l33t]] ([[User talk:Darth l33t\|talk]]) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)		How is the wiki going to handle this incident? I could put up a summary of the most noticeable changes, and I'd love to see what other people can find as well. Even better would be putting up the source itself on the wiki, marked up like the official releases. I'm not sure if that's reasonable, though; since the code wasn't officially released, I'm not sure if the NetHack GPL applies to it. At the very minimum we could update the compiling instructions with any changes that apply to the leaked code. --[[User:Darth l33t\|Darth l33t]] ([[User talk:Darth l33t\|talk]]) 21:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
		+	:It's not a release, so I think the source should not be on the wiki. Perhaps one article, like "NetHack source leak" or something like that documenting it. --[[User:Paxed\|paxed]] ([[User talk:Paxed\|talk]]) 05:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)