Page 1 of 3

Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2015 10:40 pm
by Threxx
Frankly I think this is a major stifling to a lot of people who use different builds with extra features involved in them. As long as the OP makes it clear what the build they used is (and possibly provides a download link) I don't see what the issue here is. Any possible insight on this rule?

EDIT: I'd also like to note that there have been multiple postings of FTM's saved with the 0.5 beta (which has no compatibility with any previous versions) and it has not been stated; yet this has not been pointed out as something that should be corrected for future threads. If your module isn't compatible with the most recent stable version of the official tracker, why is that not a rule that it should be stated?

EDIT 2: Quoting from the original SOYW forum rules:
5. When posting FTM files, please only upload files that are compatible with the most recent version of Famitracker.


Interpreting this to mean the most recent stable build, then all 0.5 beta FTMs should be disallowed as well. This seems more and more like unfair discrimination against certain forks of Famitracker.

Re: Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:32 am
by Stratelier
Threxx wrote:EDIT: I'd also like to note that there have been multiple postings of FTM's saved with the 0.5 beta (which has no compatibility with any previous versions) and it has not been stated; yet this has not been pointed out as something that should be corrected for future threads. If your module isn't compatible with the most recent stable version of the official tracker, why is that not a rule that it should be stated?


Agreed, if it is from an unstable/preview version then the topic needs to be tagged appropriately.

Re: Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:11 am
by jrlepage
Quoting those old forum rules is moot because this is a new forum, those are old rules and they need some updates.

With that out of the way, I would like to state that, while this is only my opinion, I think posting modules created using a fork of the main program (especially if those modules can't be opened and played normally using the official build) is a bad idea, if only because relatively few people on the forums will have the necessary build to open and play the module properly (nor can they be expected to have it). Posting an NSF created from said build is already more sensible as far as sharing your tunes with other members goes.

The other reason why I think it's bad practice is because it goes against the spirit of this forum, which is to provide support and establish a community around FamiTracker – NOT its potentially unlimited amount of forks. I think the least we incorporate unofficial builds into the forums, the better.

I'd like to point out that threads regarding, say, a Linux port of the program are okay because they aim to be compatible with the original FamiTracker (i.e. modules created with one version will open just fine with the other one, and vice versa). Forks with added (and unsupported) features are a different matter.


Beta modules are another issue entirely. I think those are fine because beta versions don't tend to stick around for very long before the final version is released (generally 2-3 weeks), and the beta version modules will be forward-compatible with the final version once it is released anyway.

Re: Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:15 am
by Threxx
jrlepage wrote:Beta modules are another issue entirely. I think those are fine because beta versions don't tend to stick around for very long before the final version is released (generally 2-3 weeks), and the beta version modules will be forward-compatible with the final version once it is released anyway.


My problem is not the posting of beta modules, but rather the lack of marking of said modules in the titles or OP's of these threads. Sorry if that was somewhat unclear.

Considering the beta is still technically an official build, these do not need to be disallowed, but I think it should be a rule that people make clear if their modules require the most recent beta build.

Re: Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:19 am
by jrlepage
I think that can easily be left as a courtesy thing rather than being made into a rule. Betas happen too infrequently and last too short a time to warrant creating a rule specifically for tagging them. It would be a pain to enforce, too. Besides, most people here are aware when a beta is out, and can easily deduce that if a module doesn't open in the latest stable build and there's no mention of a specific fork anywhere, it's probably meant for the beta.

All in all, I don't think it's worth the trouble (as opposed to modules designed for forks since those will permanently be incompatible with the official version of the program).

Re: Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:25 am
by HertzDevil
jrlepage wrote:beta versions don't tend to stick around for very long before the final version is released (generally 2-3 weeks)

Beta versions of official FamiTracker tend to stick around for very long before the final version is released (generally months, even a year in the case of 0.4.3):
  • 0.3.5: Apr 1st 2010 - Jul 24th 2010
  • 0.3.6: Jul 30th 2010 - Jan 21st 2011
  • 0.3.7: Apr 19th 2011 - Aug 20th 2011
  • 0.3.8: Jan 7th 2012 - Sep 1st 2012 (as 0.4.0 stable)
  • 0.4.2: Jan 12th 2013 - Feb 10th 2013
  • 0.4.3: Jun 25th 2013 - Jun 6th 2014
  • 0.4.4: Jul 29th 2014 - Aug 24th 2014
  • 0.4.5: Dec 16th 2014 - Jan 23rd 2015
It is plausible to think that the 0.5.0 beta can similarly exist for a few months before the stable version is out, hence users sticking with FamiTracker 0.4.6 stable will have to open these FTMs separately for possibly dozens of weeks, and be notified of the "newer version of FamiTracker" alert every time if there is not such a rule to require that FTMs created with a backward-incompatible beta build be explicitly stated as such.

Re: Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:01 am
by Warheart
I don't understand why this software is considered as open source? It probably uses GPL code, but I still don't understand...

Re: Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:13 am
by retrodpc
I second Threxx's suggestion for labelling.

Re: Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:04 pm
by Threxx
jrlepage wrote:I think that can easily be left as a courtesy thing rather than being made into a rule. Betas happen too infrequently and last too short a time to warrant creating a rule specifically for tagging them. It would be a pain to enforce, too. Besides, most people here are aware when a beta is out, and can easily deduce that if a module doesn't open in the latest stable build and there's no mention of a specific fork anywhere, it's probably meant for the beta.

All in all, I don't think it's worth the trouble (as opposed to modules designed for forks since those will permanently be incompatible with the official version of the program).


Considering HertzDevil's post, I think the effort required to enforce such a rule is necessary. It would be rude of me to assume that everyone uses an alternate fork, just as it is rude of someone else to assume that everyone is using the latest beta build.

Re: Why are non-official modules not allowed to be posted?

Posted: Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:17 pm
by Xyz
You seem to be having a lot of trouble around the concept of "official"