Skip to content

Conversation

@xexyl
Copy link
Contributor

@xexyl xexyl commented Dec 20, 2025

Changed MIN_TXZCHK_VERSION to "2.1.0 2025-11-18".
Updated TXZCHK_VERSION to "2.1.1 2025-12-20"`.

IMPORTANT NOTES: this is NOT a functional change! It is NOT necessary to have this before IOCCC30 and this is one of the reasons I changed the minimum version to what is now the previous version of txzchk. This is only done because it annoys me - NOT because it's important to anyone but me (and it's certainly unimportant for the contest). In other words even if this is not merged (or if it is not installed on the submit server) until after IOCCC29 it does not matter in the slightest. There is no real need other than to make me happier about the typo being killed.

... in fact although it has no functional change and although the min version should be fine I would personally not install this on the server until the next time - but that's me. I leave that to Landon nonetheless.

Changed MIN_TXZCHK_VERSION to "2.1.0 2025-11-18".
Updated TXZCHK_VERSION to "2.1.1 2025-12-20"`.

IMPORTANT NOTES: this is NOT a functional change! It is NOT necessary to
have this before IOCCC30 and this is one of the reasons I changed the
minimum version to what is now the previous version of txzchk. This is
only done because it annoys me - NOT because it's important to anyone
but me (and it's certainly unimportant for the contest). In other words
even if this is not merged (or if it is not installed on the submit
server) until after IOCCC29 it does not matter in the slightest. There
is no real need other than to make me happier about the typo being
killed.

... in fact although it has no functional change and although the min
version should be fine I would personally not install this on the server
until the next time - but that's me. I leave that to Landon nonetheless.
Copy link
Contributor

@lcn2 lcn2 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@xexyl
Copy link
Contributor Author

xexyl commented Dec 21, 2025

👍

Hmm .. it says you approved the changes but it didn't get merged? Do you know what happened @lcn2?

@lcn2
Copy link
Contributor

lcn2 commented Dec 21, 2025

👍

Hmm .. it says you approved the changes but it didn't get merged? Do you know what happened @lcn2?

We are waiting for the appropriate time to test. Even though this fix shouldn't impact existing content submitters, while the IOCCC29 is open we have to be extremely careful.

We are also addressing critical bugs elsewhere, such as calc issue 172 as well as monitoring the existing IOCCC29 servers, and considering a backend preemptive fix.

We are also 1/2 inclined to delay the PR until after IOCCC29 is no longer open.

@lcn2 lcn2 self-assigned this Dec 21, 2025
@lcn2 lcn2 added background priority While this issue is needs to be solved, it is of a somewhat lower priority. post-IOCCC29 All work and comments delayed until post-IOCCC29 and post IOCCC judge vacation. labels Dec 21, 2025
@xexyl
Copy link
Contributor Author

xexyl commented Dec 22, 2025

👍

Hmm .. it says you approved the changes but it didn't get merged? Do you know what happened @lcn2?

We are waiting for the appropriate time to test. Even though this fix shouldn't impact existing content submitters, while the IOCCC29 is open we have to be extremely careful.

We are also addressing critical bugs elsewhere, such as calc issue 172 as well as monitoring the existing IOCCC29 servers, and considering a backend preemptive fix.

We are also 1/2 inclined to delay the PR until after IOCCC29 is no longer open.

Like I said: I would do the same thing so by all means go for it like that.

It has no functional change anyway and it doesn't fix any bug.

I was only wondering because it said it was approved but then it didn't get approved.

And I am glad you said this. Just in case I submitted something that has this version update. I don't think so but just in case.

And actually if it is installed then I might have uncovered a bug in version checks (but perhaps not: even so it would be wise for me to m check and I will do that).

I totally forgot about that part; it might pass tests (as the server says) but that could actually reveal who I am

So with that in mind I would strongly recommend against merging this until after the contest ends.

I just hate typos.

@xexyl
Copy link
Contributor Author

xexyl commented Dec 22, 2025

I have another useful change in mind for AFTER the IOCCC29. I will open an issue and then close this pull request after referencing it. Then this change can be made after IOCCC29 along with the other thing: a minor thing also but a nice thing to do for contestants (and for consistency).

@xexyl
Copy link
Contributor Author

xexyl commented Dec 22, 2025

Converted to draft so there is no mistake in merging - even though it's just a typo. I shouldn't have even bothered to update the version. But as you'll see I opened a new issue for something I noticed - it'll be useful for future contests. Another one is related to that one which I'll now create (or if not now then later today).

@lcn2 lcn2 marked this pull request as ready for review December 23, 2025 02:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

background priority While this issue is needs to be solved, it is of a somewhat lower priority. post-IOCCC29 All work and comments delayed until post-IOCCC29 and post IOCCC judge vacation.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants