UB bug still present in v16, [split by Baronius] Options

[Baronius]

The bug was known for v15 already. Wouldn't it be easier to fix it in UB itself?

[This topic was split from this]

[Baronius]

They're still manipulating, and the practice has always seemed to prove that (regardless who interprets what post and how). For example, in case of Improved Anvil V1, after the repeated "No" answers of Sikret (who also provided technical arguments to reason his viewpoint), they still kept bothering Sikret (and trolls also arrive), and when it finally ended, certain people -- including mod developers -- started to spread various false things about Improved Anvil ("it is built to deliberately break other mods"), because that was what they believed, or they simply lied. The G3 FP developers involved didn't clarify them, in fact kept manipulating everyone. Otherwise, why would a mod developer believe such things? It's OK that a player misreads something, but a mod developer is either not a modder if speaks like that, or simply believes all what the G3FP main developers say and advertise.

That could break some mods, but that doesnt mean its a bug within the Fixpack itself. Indeed, if a mod claims Fixpack support, then it is a bug within the mod itself. If the mod does not support Fixpack, then its a compatibility problem.

It's a question of definition, but I agree with you -- in this topic, I've never said it's a fixpack "bug" that it may break other mods. It's a severe problem, no matter how we define it. Exactly as you say: a compatibility problem: that is what I call "incompatibility risk". If you think it's acceptable to have tons of "compatibility problems" (which could be avoided with correct design and verification) in standard fixpack that is meant to be used by ALL game installs and that it's the duty of the third-party mod to correct these problems, then there is no need to say anything.

Nobody listens and your point is wasted. Look at how people respond to you when you do so, on both G3 and SP. They just about ignore you, or at the least deride you.

*sigh*
When the topic is brought up, I tend to repeat my arguments, perhaps in a different form than earlier, but the point is the same.
Look at those people whose post I linked in an earlier post (Ymarsakar, luan, etc.) -- do you think I bribed them?
Look at the person who is one of the BG1NPC project authors, Blucher. Do you think I bribed him? Yes, what he said is very similar to what I say, totally independently from me (yeah, I'm not saying I convinced him about anything -- we haven't ever communicated online).
Look at Wounded Lion, who also brought up at G3 that the G3 FP isn't correctly tested. Did I perhaps bribe him or influence him?
So, please allow me to decide on my own what I think readers may be interested in, or what I think they may not be interested in.

On a side note, mentioning the .NET framework is a poor analogy here. It's not something that is untested or tends to break software that is based on it. OK, it might have bugs here and there (I had the possibility of seeing an ExecutionEngineException caught by VS2008 in WPF), but it's not something that regularly causes problems.