Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new build

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Cpeosphoros
Space Kraken
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:29 am

Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new build

#1 Post by Cpeosphoros » Sat Feb 06, 2016 2:55 am

Would it be possible that the installer give the option to not overwrite config.xml?

IMO, it's annoying having to reconfigure everything after installing the builds - or, having to save old config.xml and copying it over the new one, with the risk of mangling any change to the file format the new build may have included.
All contributions are released under GPL or LGPL v2 or later, or under appropriate Creative Commons licence, consistent with project guidelines.

User avatar
adrian_broher
Programmer
Posts: 1072
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:52 am
Location: Germany

Re: Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new buil

#2 Post by adrian_broher » Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:20 am

Would it be possible that the installer give the option to not overwrite config.xml?
No. Any installer for any software changes the system only and not the local users, because this opens a whole new set of problems.

If you want to keep certain configs, use the persistent_config.xml instead.
Resident code gremlin
Attached patches are released under GPL 2.0 or later.
Git author: Marcel Metz

User avatar
Cpeosphoros
Space Kraken
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:29 am

Re: Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new buil

#3 Post by Cpeosphoros » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:28 pm

adrian_broher wrote:If you want to keep certain configs, use the persistent_config.xml instead.
I didn't know I had that option.
All contributions are released under GPL or LGPL v2 or later, or under appropriate Creative Commons licence, consistent with project guidelines.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4608
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new buil

#4 Post by Vezzra » Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:51 pm

Cpeosphoros wrote:I didn't know I had that option.
It's probably not that well documented at the moment, being more some kind of stop-gap solution/hack which isn't particularly user-friendly anyway. The perks of an open source project in alpha phase... ;)

User avatar
Cpeosphoros
Space Kraken
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:29 am

Re: Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new buil

#5 Post by Cpeosphoros » Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:08 pm

Vezzra wrote:
Cpeosphoros wrote:I didn't know I had that option.
It's probably not that well documented at the moment, being more some kind of stop-gap solution/hack which isn't particularly user-friendly anyway. The perks of an open source project in alpha phase... ;)
If I understood it right, from the changelog and reading the code, persistent_config.xml should be in the same directory as config.xml, and contain any options I don't want to be changed by new builds. Is that correct?
All contributions are released under GPL or LGPL v2 or later, or under appropriate Creative Commons licence, consistent with project guidelines.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new buil

#6 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:11 pm

I think it will also override any options saved when you modify them in the UI, resulting in the change being reverted the next time you run the program. It might also prevent (runtime-modified) options from propagating from the client to the server.

User avatar
Cpeosphoros
Space Kraken
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:29 am

Re: Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new buil

#7 Post by Cpeosphoros » Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:18 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote:I think it will also override any options saved when you modify them in the UI, resulting in the change being reverted the next time you run the program. It might also prevent (runtime-modified) options from propagating from the client to the server.
Right, so, if I change some option I should go to config.xml and move it again to persistent. Not so much work, considering I'm doing that now with code snippets.
All contributions are released under GPL or LGPL v2 or later, or under appropriate Creative Commons licence, consistent with project guidelines.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4608
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new buil

#8 Post by Vezzra » Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:18 pm

Cpeosphoros wrote:Is that correct?
AFAIK yes. And what Geoff said.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new buil

#9 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:24 pm

Cpeosphoros wrote:Right, so, if I change some option I should go to config.xml and move it again to persistent.
Or just edit persistent_config.xml directly.

User avatar
Cpeosphoros
Space Kraken
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 11:29 am

Re: Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new buil

#10 Post by Cpeosphoros » Tue Feb 09, 2016 2:14 pm

On editing config.xml, is it possible/planned that the Objects view's columns' width would be editable inside the UI? The config.xml has the options to adjust it, but it's kinda akward to do that from a config file, instead of simply dragging it in the UI directly.
All contributions are released under GPL or LGPL v2 or later, or under appropriate Creative Commons licence, consistent with project guidelines.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12247
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Suggestion: Keeping old options when installing new buil

#11 Post by Geoff the Medio » Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:00 pm

Cpeosphoros wrote:...is it possible/planned that the Objects view's columns' width would be editable inside the UI?
Would be nice / should be done, but I don't plan on doing it any time soon.

A similar issue is the current inability to manually adjust the size of the fleets and ships lists in the FleetWnd. Someone was working on it a while ago, but never got it to a useful / acceptable state.

Post Reply