EVE General Discussion

Research the eve online Exodus deployment and you will have your answer

Patch was deployed. I launched the client, logged in and game works fine for me.

I'd call that successful.

If you're having issues with the game after the patch I'd suggest you put in a ticket :)

Successful is; after it's deployed, the servers restarted and you could log in.

(Believe it or not, "good" is a values judgement. What you think is "good" others may think is...not -
one of those pesky facts of life we all have to learn to live with - though some of us don't bother.)

Think of deployment as either its on tranquility, or its not.

Whether it works as intended once its there doesn't even matter.



Its all in how you market things.

In my shop "successfully deployed" means that the software build we just released passes all unit and integration tests after pushing the changes to production.

It doesn't mean that every possible edge case is guaranteed to work. It doesn't mean there are no bugs. It doesn't mean that there aren't things that we want to make better in the future.

It just means that we don't have regressions (that we've tested for) that we aren't okay with, and we have the new functionality (that we have tested for).

"Successfully Deployed" also means, "All hands on deck for the next 12 hours when the sh!t hits the fan for all the code that isn't covered."

I have a lot of sympathy for CCP and their legacy code.

I'm personally in charge of some legacy code for my company right now. It blows. The guy who wrote it is long gone. There's no definitive spec for what it is or isn't supposed to do. Just a bunch of clients who get upset when it doesn't work. But no one really knows what it means for it to "work."

It's written in "c#" but the guy who wrote it was a Clarion (!) guy, and I don't know Clarion, but he was pretty much writing Clarion in c# as much as possible. The guy literally wrote his own little DSL to compile pseudo-Clarion to a sort of bastardized-but-compilable-c#. And people want me to add features and fix bugs. Umm, Eff that. Oh, and the source for his ~Clarion to ~C# DSL? Gone. Took it with him. Can't even learn that sheit.

There's no way to write unit tests without rewriting the code so it's testable. There's no way to write integration tests because we aren't clear about what we think it ought to do.

So what do we do? We do what we can with it. Add tests as we add or fix code, and we hope the whole thing doesn't just blow up. Sometimes it does. And when it does I bust my ass to figure out why ASAP and get it fixed.

But the bottom line is that there just isn't a whole lot you can do with certain chunks of code. Your choices are to rewrite them from scratch (bad because then you have to have all the growing pains of refinding all the bugs and fixing them), or patch around them (unreliable because you don't know that you won't be affecting state elsewhere).

You can be very very good at programming and still not be able to reason with certainty about what 5-6000 lines of code are doing. Because, perhaps, those lines are tightly coupled to the state of another object that is beyond your control. Because, perhaps, that code was written in a way that depends on a service provided by some other code that you cannot possibly predict the state of. Or maybe it was just sh!t code to begin with that isn't needed anymore but there's a comment just above it that says

# I know this looks crazy, but DON'T MESS WITH IT! EVERYTHING BREAKS!!

And you waste 5 days believing that comment while trying to fix a bug for windows XP users, and then you remove the line below it for shiggles and suddenly everything works because that programmer forgot to update his comments.

Or . . . one of any number of things that could be like that or could be very different from that.

I have no effing idea what the codebase looks like to developers at CCP. But if it's anything like the real world I live and work and write code in, I'm guessing there are parts of it that are just awful and for which there really is no good solution right now.

I'm impressed that such a small team can keep a product this complicated working as well as it does.

Self-entitled righteous ****?

Successfully deployed = boot.ini, present and functioning

I remember those days. TBH for all the bitching that goes on after the patches, I really do think CCP do a great job on them and getting the servers back up in great time.

I would assume its the opposite of "unsuccessfully deployed". And we have had those before (not for a long time now thankfully, CCP have been doin' good on this front)

It's when mommy and daddy got together ...
... had lots of fun tonight, even though they were screaming ...
... and nine months later YOU were born! :)