Idea

[chris the cynic]

By collaborative I meant beyond a hand-picked team. I was thinking of some kind of repository where all the most recent files would be stored along with a txt explaining who the previous authors were+contact details, whether they're active and what work remained. I imagine an author is added only if they've made a change to the model/animation/texture that's been approved by the team. For models that haven't been worked on at all they might just leave a txt file explaining some things they'd like done. I'm just throwing ideas around though. Anyway, HDTP apparently has no need for anything like this anymore so I'm assuming this conversation is now just dealing with hypotheticals. That's fine with me, doesn't hurt anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by hand picked team. When taking on more people would have helped HDTP was open to volunteers.

The thing about what you're describing is that if it isn't open to the public it isn't no different from how most collaborative projects already work. (I think it's basically how HDTP worked.) If it is open to the public then it amounts to releasing everything before it is done.

First though, let me just say that you can easily apply your argument to nearly any open source project currently out there.

I make no claims to be an open source expert, but most projects I have encountered have people finish what they're doing before releasing it to the public. I haven't seen a lot of, "I'm working on this thing, and I'm almost done, but I figured that I'd put it online now on the off chance that someone will do what I'm already doing but do it faster." Even the open collaborative mods I have seen, one of which was indeed a graphics project, had people finishing what they were working on before releasing.

Released code is badly edited and redistributed under various names (crediting the original authors for their work) all the time.

The key word here, from my reading, is "released". When they released it, was it unfinished? Did those badly edited redistributed things come out before the finished project. Was there a time when the only way to use the code was to use one of the badly edited versions (or make one yourself)?

You seem to be more in tune with the open source community than I am, so perhaps you know things I don't, but my understanding is that released code is in some way done. It might not be a whole program, but whatever it is is finished. People don't release the first 31.560 percent of whatever bit of code they're currently working on. Whatever they release, however big or small, is going to be done unless they're releasing it because they can't finish themselves.

Unless I missed something open source doesn't mean, "Open to the public before it is complete," which is what you're talking about. That makes a big damn difference. It is one thing to let people rework what you did after you've done it. It is another to let them rework what you're working on while you're still working on it.

To return to your own points:

I guarantee you most if not all people will still know where to get the original materials from, and unless they're stupid or have been lied to they won't identify the quality of that work with an edited release.

Does it really work that way if the original maker releases what they have before they are finished?

Say I were making a game, or a mod, or an internet browser called Better Robots, and I decided that I'd put the stuff online as I worked on it, that way if someone wanted to help out they could do some work and submit it to me, if it was good enough I'd use it.

Now say that someone took the open source work that I put online, quickly (and with low quality) finished off the unfinished stuff, combined it (clumsily) into a program you could run, and released that onto the internet as the unofficial first build of Better Robots.

Even if people still know where the materials come from, what does it matter? They're using it as a game, or a mod, or an internet browser. If they go back to my site to see what the original is like they're not going to find a game, or a mod, or an internet browser. They're going to find a bunch of components that could be combined to make one. How many of them are going to browse through those materials to discover that it isn't my code that is buggy, that it isn't my textures that are gaudy, that it isn't my Better Robots that sucks?

Is it really true that most if not all people will do the research necessary to discover that the only version Better Robots they can use is not, in fact, indicative of the quality of the Better Robots that I will eventually release? Or is it instead true that they'll base their assessment on the only version they can actually use?

I could be wrong, but I think if someone is looking for a game, and only one available version is playable as a game, they'll assess it based on the version they can use as game even if that version is the edited version. I think if someone is looking for a mod, and only one available version is usable as a mod, they'll assess it based on the version they can use as mod even if that version is the edited version. I think if someone is looking for an internet browser, and only one available version is usable as an internet browser, they'll assess it based on the version they can use as an internet browser even if that version is the edited version.

That's a problem because when Better Robots is eventually released by me people will already be in the habit of associating Better Robots with sucking because previously the only version they could actually use sucked.

[Why Ask?]

Unless I missed something open source doesn't mean, "Open to the public before it is complete," which is what you're talking about. That makes a big damn difference. It is one thing to let people rework what you did after you've done it. It is another to let them rework what you're working on while you're still working on it.

Why couldn't it mean that? Certainly the word isn't applied that way in all instances, but it is in many of them. I mean, there's nothing stopping someone from doing that. A base might be given out that's missing functionality in some areas so that those areas can be expanded upon by others. For example, what about unofficial patches for games? There are plenty of those out there for games that are no longer/rarely being updated for various reasons (e.g. company folded). Is it that hard to imagine how the code to an unfinished version of that patch can be released onto the internet, developed by others and still be open source? That's most definitely open source.

I could be wrong, but I think if someone is looking for a game, and only one available version is playable as a game, they'll assess it based on the version they can use as game even if that version is the edited version. I think if someone is looking for a mod, and only one available version is usable as a mod, they'll assess it based on the version they can use as mod even if that version is the edited version. I think if someone is looking for an internet browser, and only one available version is usable as an internet browser, they'll assess it based on the version they can use as an internet browser even if that version is the edited version.

Then that's wrong of them and the author of the modified X (X being any one of the above) should have been clearer. There are guidelines you can set so that the modifier of X makes sure those people downloading the modified X know it doesn't represent the functionality or state of the original X. Some people might ignore it, but so what? Really, so what? This quality control stuff really shouldn't bother us. I mean, this is a 10 year old game that most people have either never heard of or will never play even if they have. The community is small enough for word to get around. Why treat this like some sort of business venture when it isn't?

[chris the cynic]

Why couldn't it mean that? Certainly the word isn't applied that way in all instances, but it is in many of them. I mean, there's nothing stopping someone from doing that.

There's no reason it couldn't mean that. There's no reason it couldn't mean cheesecake.

For the purposes of our discussion it is important to note that what you are talking about is not the same as the commonly accepted meaning of open source and thus what I am saying in response cannot be applied to open source projects in general.

A base might be given out that's missing functionality in some areas so that those areas can be expanded upon by others.

But in that case the person/organization giving out the base has finished their part of the project. They made the base, they're done with the base, the expanded functionality is for others to do. What you're talking about is people giving out their work before they have finished their part of it, so that others might do the exact same thing they're going to do anyway. You're talking about people giving out an unfinished base so that others can try to finish it while the people who gave it out do the exact same thing.

You are essentially talking about unnecessary duplication of effort via the release of unfinished work.

For example, what about unofficial patches for games? There are plenty of those out there for games that are no longer/rarely being updated for various reasons (e.g. company folded). Is it that hard to imagine how the code to an unfinished version of that patch be released onto the internet, developed by others and still be open source? That's most defiantly open source.

But in that case you're talking about something that the originator doesn't intend to finish and has only been released after the originator has done all of the work they expect to do. It isn't releasing something they are still working on, it is releasing something they are done working on. That is very different from what you originally suggested.

Then that's wrong of them and the author of the modified X (X being any one of the above) should have been clearer. There are guidelines you can set so that the modifier of X makes sure those people downloading the modified X know it doesn't represent the functionality or state of the original X. Some people might ignore it, but so what? Really, so what? This quality control stuff really shouldn't bother us. I mean, this is a 10 year old game that most people have either never heard of or will never play even if they have. The community is small enough for word to get around. Why treat this like some sort of business venture when it isn't?

Are we talking about HDTP here, or are we talking about abstract? I thought you said we were discussing in the abstract now, so I have done my best to stay in the abstract, if we're talking about HDTP then I shouldn't be doing that.

First, in the abstract, it is a problem because you are poisoning the market. Even if you don't intend to make any money the marketplace matters. You're doing whatever it is you're doing in hopes that people will use it, if you had no such intention there would be no reason to release it ever. For whatever reason you want people to be using whatever it is you're making. Where the reasoning goes from here really depends on why you want others to use it.*

Whatever your reason, if people aren't using it because they already used a lower quality version then those people aren't using it. Your goal of having people using it has been thwarted (unless you only wanted certain people to use and those people were identically equal to those who wouldn't be less likely to use yours in the presence of an earlier version.)

-

If we're talking about HDTP, then the thing you have to consider is that they really care about the quality of their work. They really fucking care. There are other factors at play as well, and the HDTP team can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the major factor is that they really give a damn about quality. As such the only way they'll be releasing the mod without finishing it is if that is the only way the mod will get released.

They're not going to settle for an incomplete.

If you care about the quality of your work then controlling that quality isn't a matter of treating something like a business venture, it is a matter of doing what is right for you. What is right for them is making sure that when HDTP is released it is the best that it can be, not the best that it can be less nine weapons which are incomplete but could have been complete if they'd just waited a little longer.

There is a possibility that, once it is finished, it will be open source and then people can modify it to their hearts contents. But if that happens it will be after people can use the original.

-
-

* For example, let's say that you want people to use it because you think it will make their lives better. In that case the more people who use it the more lives you make better. So you want as many people to use it as possible.

If someone releases a bad version of your stuff before you release the good version later on that makes two problems. The first is that people end up getting a bad version. It isn't their fault, at the time that was the only version in the marketplace so of course they'd get it. It is your fault for allowing someone else to release that version before you released yours. The second is that when your good version is released people will already be familiar with the bad version. The way that people react to such situations is not rational. Even if they know that that bad version isn't representative of the good version the bad version will have soured some people on the entire idea and they may not get the good version as a result.

Fewer people get it, fewer lives are made better, your goals are hindered.

If, on the other hand, you want others to use it because you need your ego stroked then the possibility of having your reputation sullied by association might be a bigger concern than how many people use it. This really is an area where you need to take motivation into account.

[Why Ask?]

For the purposes of our discussion it is important to note that what you are talking about is not the same as the commonly accepted meaning of open source and thus what I am saying in response cannot be applied to open source projects in general.

How is it not? People releasing code that includes parts that they intend on finishing later isn't open source? An obvious reason to do this comes to mind, they want help. This doesn't mean the person lets others finish his work for him! See both quotes below.

But in that case the person/organization giving out the base has finished their part of the project. They made the base, they're done with the base, the expanded functionality is for others to do. What you're talking about is people giving out their work before they have finished their part of it, so that others might do the exact same thing they're going to do anyway. You're talking about people giving out an unfinished base so that others can try to finish it while the people who gave it out do the exact same thing.

You are essentially talking about unnecessary duplication of effort via the release of unfinished work.

I worded it in a way that is slightly deceiving, I'll be honest. I didn't say that those areas necessarily had to be finished by others, but expanded upon. The person who coded the base can still be involved. In the case of HDTP I did mention including information about those actively working on a certain model/texture/animation, this could help curb redundant work. Still people can implement things in various ways, sometimes radically different, which is why it's not always unnecessary duplication. Hell, you could have multiple versions of the same object (this is going back to graphics conversion mods) included, with the player able to choose his preferred one. Still you could do these things after a model is in place. Anyway, MY MAIN REASON FOR RELEASING UNFINISHED MATERIAL was in the case that work on the material was stagnant or because the person needed help with some specific things. The latter might not be relevant to HDTP. But if something is actively being worked on by a trusted developer they probably shouldn't put it up until it's finished, I agree.

But in that case you're talking about something that the originator doesn't intend to finish and has only been released after the originator has done all of the work they expect to do. It isn't releasing something they are still working on, it is releasing something they are done working on. That is very different from what you originally suggested.

Maybe my wording was bad here again. Just because it's being worked on by others doesn't preclude the original author of continuing his work on it. That's actually precisely what I had in mind, him releasing his code onto the net to make it easier to develop, not releasing it and saying "good luck with that guys, see ya!"

First, in the abstract, it is a problem because you are poisoning the market. Even if you don't intend to make any money the marketplace matters. You're doing whatever it is you're doing in hopes that people will use it, if you had no such intention there would be no reason to release it ever. For whatever reason you want people to be using whatever it is you're making. Where the reasoning goes from here really depends on why you want others to use it.*

Whatever your reason, if people aren't using it because they already used a lower quality version then those people aren't using it. Your goal of having people using it has been thwarted (unless you only wanted certain people to use and those people were identically equal to those who wouldn't be less likely to use yours in the presence of an earlier version.)

I disagree with you that this should matter given that you take certain precautions. If I was developing X I'd be okay with fucked up versions of X floating around on the internet, as long as developer of said fucked up version of X is clear that their copy doesn't represent the functionality or state of my unfinished copy, doesn't call it the same thing as X and links/mentions my unfinished copy of X.

[chris the cynic]

For the purposes of our discussion it is important to note that what you are talking about is not the same as the commonly accepted meaning of open source and thus what I am saying in response cannot be applied to open source projects in general.

How is it not? People releasing code that includes parts that they intend on finishing later isn't open source?

You're conflating two very different things.

It is not the same as the commonly accepted definition of open source and thus things said about it cannot be applied to open source projects in general because, among other things, a project doesn't need to do that to be open source.

Say a project ended and released everything that it had to the public free for anyone to edit and redistribute as they saw fit. That would be an open source project, it would also totally fail to resemble what you've described in pretty much all relevant ways. Certainly none of the criticisms I have of your idea could be applied to such an open source project.

That is why a distinction needs to be made.

Providing an example of something that meets your requirements that is open source doesn't change the fact that meeting your requirements is not the same as being open source. For them to be the same your requirements would need to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for a project to be open source. (Which would mean that every open source project met your requirements, and every project that met your requirements was open source, which is clearly not the case.)

I worded it in a way that is slightly deceiving, I'll be honest. I didn't say that those areas necessarily had to be finished by others, but expanded upon. The person who coded the base can still be involved.

But you're sidestepping an important point, even in your own example the person had finished the base. Whether the person does additional work or not, what they're releasing is in some way finished. The thing may not be everything it could be, or even everything it will be when its creator finally stops working with it, but neither are you talking about someone releasing incomplete work. It is not a publicly accessible "repository where all the most recent files would be stored," it is instead a completed thing that can be expanded upon or used as a component to build other things now that it has been completed and released.

In the case of HDTP I did mention including information about those actively working on a certain model/texture/animation, this could help curb redundant work.

Yes, you did, and yes, it potentially could. You also suggested that the use of this would be for others to do what DDL is already doing.

Perhaps more importantly, the only reason you ever gave for putting online things that were currently in progress was so that others could work on them. You gave no other justification. If you don't want redundant work, why suggest all the most recent files be online in the first place? Why not suggest that the only things released to the public are incomplete things that have no one working on them at the moment?

Hell, you could have multiple versions of the same object (this is going back to graphics conversion mods) included, with the player able to choose his preferred one.

You could indeed. But that really seems to be beside the point. You could have multiple versions of the same object without releasing incomplete work. Someone doesn't need someone else's incomplete work to create their own version of it.

The only reason to get someone else's work is if you want to work on their version. There is certainly nothing wrong with that if they don't mind you doing it, but there's also nothing wrong with waiting until they are done with their version.

Anyway, MY MAIN REASON FOR RELEASING UNFINISHED MATERIAL was in the case that work on the material was stagnant or because the person needed help with some specific things.

Which means that it doesn't apply to HDTP, as you've already pointed out, and also that the entire system you've described really doesn't make sense. The model you've advanced makes no distinction between stagnant and non-stagnant work. The model you've described makes no distinction between someone needing help with some specific things, and someone being just fine on their own. Yes, the text files you've suggested would help individual users make that distinction, but a team following your suggested process would release unfinished material regardless.

But if something is actively being worked on by a trusted developer they probably shouldn't put it up until it's finished, I agree.

I'd like to believe this, but everywhere else in your post, before and after the part where you say this, you seem to disregard it.

I disagree with you that this should matter given that you take certain precautions. If I was developing X I'd be okay with fucked up versions of X floating around on the internet, as long as developer of said fucked up version of X is clear that their copy doesn't represent the functionality or state of my unfinished copy, doesn't call it the same thing as X and links/mentions my unfinished copy of X.

What you have to understand is that what matters to you personally isn't always what matters to other people.

As an example, for many people a disclaimer like the one you describe is a means to an end. It is an attempt to reduce the unfortunate tendency of people to make associations they shouldn't make. As such the fact that such a thing is extremely unlikely to be effective in the situation described means that for many people such a disclaimer would not be enough.

For such people what matters is not whether or not something says, "You shouldn't judge X based on Y," but whether or not people will judge X based on Y. It is not whether something says, "Even though you've tried Y you should still get X when it comes out," but whether or not people still will get X when it come out. So on and so forth.

I'm not saying that this is how it is for the HDTP team, there are any number of reasons for them not to want to do what you suggested and I have no way to know which ones are true. What I am saying is that you should be aware that just because you'd be okay with something doesn't mean others would as well.

[Why Ask?]

You're conflating two very different things.

It is not the same as the commonly accepted definition of open source and thus things said about it cannot be applied to open source projects in general because, among other things, a project doesn't need to do that to be open source.

Say a project ended and released everything that it had to the public free for anyone to edit and redistribute as they saw fit. That would be an open source project, it would also totally fail to resemble what you've described in pretty much all relevant ways. Certainly none of the criticisms I have of your idea could be applied to such an open source project.

That is why a distinction needs to be made.

Providing an example of something that meets your requirements that is open source doesn't change the fact that meeting your requirements is not the same as being open source. For them to be the same your requirements would need to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for a project to be open source. (Which would mean that every open source project met your requirements, and every project that met your requirements was open source, which is clearly not the case.)

You've confused my words. I never said my use of the word open source==open source, I said it is a proper subset of open source. I didn't set up an equivalence between them. From my first post on this page,

Certainly the word isn't applied that way in all instances, but it is in many of them.

Of course I think releasing code to a finished product is open source. To me, having access to the code of a project before or after that project is complete makes it open source. I don't believe that the code has to be fully implemented, even to the point of functioning at all.

The only reason to get someone else's work is if you want to work on their version. There is certainly nothing wrong with that if they don't mind you doing it, but there's also nothing wrong with waiting until they are done with their version.

I said as much in my post... "still you could do these things after a model is in place." I just thought that they'd likely store the most recent version anyway as backup and how neat it would be to see the process and have it at your fingertips at any point of the development. You don't have to do this though! You could post only finished files or unfinished files that were not actively being worked on. You're acting like there was a definitive model I had in mind for development, but I never claimed this, I even said that I was "just throwing ideas around." I've suggested at least three things (see below). Still, that one model you keep bringing up I'd love to see because you'd be able to track the development of everything, and to me that's exciting. It might not be the most efficient, but it wasn't meant to be and is also not the only thing I suggested

Which means that it doesn't apply to HDTP, as you've already pointed out, and also that the entire system you've described really doesn't make sense. The model you've advanced makes no distinction between stagnant and non-stagnant work. The model you've described makes no distinction between someone needing help with some specific things, and someone being just fine on their own. Yes, the text files you've suggested would help individual users make that distinction, but a team following your suggested process would release unfinished material regardless.

Again you're acting as if I've already laid down precisely what "my model" is. In my FIRST post in this thread I said,

Perhaps some kind of repository managed by a small group (2-3 people?) would have fared better. Or, every now and then, you could have released a small set of unfinished material on which progress was slow to non-existent.

I've also suggested releasing ALL the unfinished material for which there was little to no progress being made on. So no, I didn't necessarily have in mind the model of releasing all the material online when saying that, so there isn't much point going further with it.

Going back to HDTP, isn't the project stagnant? Don't confuse my one suggestion with what I said I'd like to be done now. When I saw that only 9 weapons needed to be compiled and placed into the game (I really don't know the specifics, people have been vague) I said why not release just those materials online. From my understanding DDL was busy and so no work was being done. Remember, I didn't suggest this "model of mine" for the current HDTP, I was describing an experiment I would have liked to have seen.

[chris the cynic]

You've confused my words. I never said my use of the word open source==open source, I said it is a proper subset of open source. I didn't set up an equivalence between them.

You said, "First though, let me just say that you can easily apply your argument to nearly any open source project currently out there," when my argument applied to projects that released unfinished work during development. I disagree that the subset in question makes up a large enough proportion to constitute "nearly any open source project currently out there." Also, depending on how we are using the word many, have my doubts about it it being used in many of them. But you are correct that those instances didn't set up an equivalence.

For setting up an equivalence between them, there's probably not a better example than how you responded to the words "what you are talking about is not the same as the commonly accepted meaning of open source." First you asked "How is it not?" and then you delivered an argument. That is setting up an equivalence, or rather operating from a position of assuming an equivalence, because a proper subset is not the same as what it is a proper subset of. By definition.

So if you, at that point in time, were already operating from a position of believing the two were not the same, why respond as you did? Why ask, "How is it not?" when you knew that the answer was "It is a proper subset and therefore cannot be the same"? If you had done that instead of acted like you didn't know it was a proper subset it would have saved me the trouble of explaining that it was a proper subset.

You may not have believed there was an equivalence, and I can see evidence you can use to support the idea that you did not, but you certainly did set one up. It was that that I was responding to, not your previous posts.

You're acting like there was a definitive model I had in mind for development, but I never claimed this, I even said that I was "just throwing ideas around."

In the same post where you said you were just throwing ideas around you laid out a model for how to handle non final releases. This was described in more detail than any previous idea you threw out, it was the only one that discussed making public things that were unfinished and being worked, and it thus should have been clear which one I was talking about.

Your other ideas were not presented in any significant detail. One, the idea of a non-public group collaboration, could hardly be called your idea as it is pretty much the standard model of mod making, and indeed just about every other group project. The other ("every now and then, you could have released a small set of unfinished material on which progress was slow to non-existent.") isn't exactly what I'd call a complete model of process.

The only complete process described by you, a process which also appears to be unique to you and happens to be the one you've most recently put forth, is the one that I have described both as your model and your process.

That model/process/whatever was:

I was thinking of some kind of repository where all the most recent files would be stored along with a txt explaining who the previous authors were+contact details, whether they're active and what work remained. I imagine an author is added only if they've made a change to the model/animation/texture that's been approved by the team. For models that haven't been worked on at all they might just leave a txt file explaining some things they'd like done.

Going back to HDTP, isn't the project stagnant?

Not to my knowledge. As far as I know progress is slow, which (while worse than being fast) is definitely not the same as the project being stagnant.

Do you have some privileged information you'd like to share?

[Why Ask?]

You may not have believed there was an equivalence, and I can see evidence you can use to support the idea that you did not, but you certainly did set one up. It was that that I was responding to, not your previous posts.

For some reason I took both your statements to mean my use of the word open source doesn't fit into the definition of open source. So I really meant, "how is it not an example?" It's clear to me now that that this isn't what you said or meant. That is why I responded the way I did. The only evidence I have to support this is how insane it would be for someone to believe that releasing the code to a completed project is not an example of open source, and also the fact that I said my use of the word is an instance of open source and not open source itself. So yes, I believe it is a proper subset of open source.

In the same post where you said you were just throwing ideas around you laid out a model for how to handle non final releases. This was described in more detail than any previous idea you threw out, it was the only one that discussed making public things that were unfinished and being worked, and it thus should have been clear which one I was talking about.

Yes, I laid down a model in which ideas were not finalized. That's why I said I was only thinking about it (and not necessarily how it should be done) and throwing ideas around. That is not a definitive model. As far as development there is no advantage to releasing all the material. I thought it'd be nice for everyone to have access to the material sooner rather than later. I've said this isn't necessary.

Also, where did I suggest a non-public group collaboration? When I said repository managed by 2-3 people I intended the repository to be open. The 2-3 people would manage the material uploaded. They could accept that material either by their own judgement, by vote, by the opinions of respected developers, etc... Either way the material could be accessed by anyone and could be made by anyone. I don't see how this resembles the standard model of mod development.

[chris the cynic]

Also, where did I suggest a non-public group collaboration?

I initially believed the repository you originally suggested was to be public, but if that were the case then by my count you would have put forward two ideas, not three. When you claimed to have put forward three ideas I looked for the third idea confident that it must be somewhere in the bits of your own text you quoted in the post where you claimed to have three ideas. The only way I could make those things add up to three ideas was to assume the group thing, which is not explicitly stated to be public was, in spite of implications to the contrary, private.

Given that you are saying that is not the case, my initial conclusion again seems the most reasonable interpretation of your words*. Perhaps you should explain exactly what your three ideas are, because right now all I can figure out is this:
1 Release materials to the public as they come into existence
2 Release unfinished material on which progress is slow to non-existent.
3 Nothing else.

What's the third option supposed to be?

The only way I could come up with one was to assume that your "some kind of repository managed by a small group" was somehow different from "some kind of repository where ... an author is added only if they've made a change ... that's been approved by the team." Since a team that decides what is approved in the repository is a (small) group managing the repository the only way I could find to make them different is if one is public and the other is private. Apparently that is not the case, so I'm a little hazy on where that third option is.

-

*My initial conclusion, if you were wondering, was that

some kind of repository where all the most recent files would be stored along with a txt explaining who the previous authors were+contact details, whether they're active and what work remained. I imagine an author is added only if they've made a change to the model/animation/texture that's been approved by the team. For models that haven't been worked on at all they might just leave a txt file explaining some things they'd like done.

was a more detailed explanation of

some kind of repository managed by a small group

and as such my original response to it should be understood to be on the assumption that it was an expansion on the idea you had already put forward and not a wholly new idea.

[Why Ask?]

Yeah, everything is rather scattered... But I counted 3 because I made a distinction between releasing small sets of unfinished material (inactively being... well you know) and releasing it all at once (again inactively... blah blah blah). The former was suggested so that it might be easier to manage, since all the material should presumably go through the people managing the project. I don't know how much of a difference this would make in practice. Then there's the first thing you listed.

[Hashi]

HDTP will come out on the 12/12/2012 at 12:12:12 (Yes down to the very second)

Of course this will depend where you measure it from. Somewhere in Australia, Europe, USA?

I cannot answer that question but it is no beyond answering.

[m3rc1l3ss]

HDTP will come out on the 12/12/2012 at 12:12:12 (Yes down to the very second)

Of course this will depend where you measure it from. Somewhere in Australia, Europe, USA?

I cannot answer that question but it is no beyond answering.

I thought the release was to be 1/1/2013 0:0:01

Also I know I am not part of the mod but can we just say that there are going to be no changes to the way the mod is being done. As has already been stated only a few more animations need to be done, and nothing will be changing this late in the process as it would have happened far sooner of it were possible.