fix me beautifull
category: general [glöplog]
done
The readme file is wrong (bad readme, this is the one of another prod). Could you remove it and i will add the good one :-)
Thx
Thx
what prod?
There is a problem with this prod:
how can i update the prod image easily? as i have now a GIF animation ready :)
how can i update the prod image easily? as i have now a GIF animation ready :)
go ahead
fix my handles :
rhah RA ra 12c4 12c4 .
rhah RA ra 12c4 12c4 .
dont forget the " . " thanks
oh and 24 of course
rhah RA ra 24 12c4 .
@havoc
Back to the Pixelated World
Thx
Back to the Pixelated World
Thx
Quote:
@havoc
Back to the Pixelated World
Thx
fixed
There is a problem with this prod: ...
need to remove the page for this demo if possible thanks
need to remove the page for this demo if possible thanks
I assume it was uploaded prematurely - prod removed.
Thanks very much for your fixings ... appreciate a lot .
Thanks to you all. Revision is always such a great experience. Greetings go out to dojoe and everyone else I forgot.
I uploaded the info text in wrong format for https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=105976.
How can I change it?
How can I change it?
You can try again now.
Dead wonderful and hardworking pouet staff, could you please replace this results with this version: https://files.schnappsgirls.de/results-repack.txt
There is a problem with this prod: I added this prod because it wasn't on pouet yet, but I'm not sure if I was supposed/allowed to add it since I'm not the author of the prod. Should this be removed? Can the "added by" be changed to lft?
moqui: done
yrlf: nah it's fine
yrlf: nah it's fine
Thank you, havoc.
Is it possible to add Picotron to platforms?
There is a problem with this prod: ...
Unfortunately, the wrong image was selected as the screenshot. This needs to be changed.
This should have been it:
https://demozoo.org/productions/390024/screenshots/
The fifth image, with the marble bust
Unfortunately, the wrong image was selected as the screenshot. This needs to be changed.
This should have been it:
https://demozoo.org/productions/390024/screenshots/
The fifth image, with the marble bust
I wanted to add a link to the source repository of my revision release.
Initially, I labelled it "source", which got rejected as per the FAQ because it's not a direct download link. Fair enough, so I again submitted a request to add the link, now with label "codeberg". This again got rejected, with only a link to the same FAQ entry as explanation.
Now, the FAQ states:
I had hoped, by this wording, that there would be other git repo hosting sides allowed besides Github (now infamous for its bad uptime) and Google Code (which has stopped existing over a decade ago). Several emudev people have been digging into the source code already (as I haven't written the writeup yet), so I would also argue it is, in fact, "of interest to others".
So what exactly is the grounds for refusal here?
Initially, I labelled it "source", which got rejected as per the FAQ because it's not a direct download link. Fair enough, so I again submitted a request to add the link, now with label "codeberg". This again got rejected, with only a link to the same FAQ entry as explanation.
Now, the FAQ states:
Quote:
Sources:
- source (direct link to file only)
- github
- googlecode
[...]
The above list is by no means complete, it's only supposed to give you some pointers.
Keep in mind that we are going for a minimalistic approach, please consider whether the link you're trying to add is of any interest to others !
I had hoped, by this wording, that there would be other git repo hosting sides allowed besides Github (now infamous for its bad uptime) and Google Code (which has stopped existing over a decade ago). Several emudev people have been digging into the source code already (as I haven't written the writeup yet), so I would also argue it is, in fact, "of interest to others".
So what exactly is the grounds for refusal here?
