RPCS3 Forums

Full Version: Messed up RPCS3 Build Names
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi,
I keep my RPCS3 updated, so i checked the download page sometimes 5-10 times a day for new builds.
I noticed something strange about build names, that you can download a build with older date than what you previously downloaded:

October 10 (00:56) i downloaded: rpcs3-v0.0.3-2017-10-09-6d6b2812_win64
October 10 (12:21) i downloaded: rpcs3-v0.0.3-2017-10-04-5a03db7d_win64
October 11 (19:21) i downloaded: rpcs3-v0.0.3-2017-10-11-f5d450f2_win64
October 12 (02:49) I downloaded: rpcs3-v0.0.3-2017-10-11-5b199089_win64
October 12 (04:53) I downloaded: rpcs3-v0.0.3-2017-10-08-e8bde583_win64

So the newest build from 04:53 has date of 2017-10-08 but the previous build from just 2 hours before 02:49 at night has date of 2017-10-11

Same thing happened before on October 10 i downloaded build numbered 2017-10-09 and later that day a build named 2017-10-04

The strange thing is that the Build number on the Download button is different from actual download, right now the button says v0.0.3-6433 (e8bde58) Alpha [2017-10-12] but when you click on it you get rpcs3-v0.0.3-2017-10-08-e8bde583_win64.zip file

Are the file name dates have any meaning? The newer build with lower date has all the fixes that older build but with newer date? 
The download button ALWAYS has the newest build no matter its name and i should just ignore how they numbered?

Thanks
Uh good question, seems like dates are wrong in the AppVeyor website.
Our website gets the dates from the pull request right when collecting the build information so they should be always right.

The order on the build history is the correct one, even if the date says it's older than previous build, don't worry.
(10-12-2017, 09:51 AM)Ani Wrote: [ -> ]Uh good question, seems like dates are wrong in the AppVeyor website.
Our website gets the dates from the pull request right when collecting the build information so they should be always right.

The order on the build history is the correct one, even if the date says it's older than previous build, don't worry.

Thank you