Not sure whether intentional, but wont this prevent 23 playing with 23b. I thought that was a requirement judging from all the hassle about compatibility.

Do we really need it? I thought we have pretty compatible versions. Also these *b versions aren't running on serverside, no?

@elexis @Itms

To me people should upgrade. If we were commercial software, it would be different. But here you literally have no reason not to upgrade.

In current alpha 23 square maps are not rejoinable (OOS), aren't they? That would make them sufficiently incompatible.

In rP21943#31673, @Stan wrote:

To me people should upgrade.

Only if needed.

If we were commercial software, it would be different.

It depends on many things.

But here you literally have no reason not to upgrade.

How would people know that they should upgrade the game?

How people will know that they have updated version. Did we add the b suffix to the name in the main menu too?

Also the objection is that I don't see any ticket, diff or link, that it's accepted name and the serverside is done.

Not to mention ~1GB for an upgrade which literally added nothing visible. Not really an issue for most though.

In rP21943#31678, @smiley wrote:

Not to mention ~1GB for an upgrade which literally added nothing visible. Not really an issue for most though.

That's right... I wonder if we could provide small installers for Windows that only replace a subset of files. We would call them patches.

Getting an OOS error at a later time in a match versus getting an OOS error at the beginning of a match is not a qualification to change the room in the re-release.
That WFG logs who accepted the new GDPR terms and that players can play without the a23 OOS errors are nice benefits, but not the reason to add this new room.
Most certainly multiple players in a match with 6-8 players getting disconnected at the gamestart and every rejoin attempt on every map due to the petra AI teambonus initialization freezing the non-threaded NetClient for 10+ seconds up to the point where it counts that as a disconnect is.
The only reason many 4v4s currently work is because those people use svn, that includes a petra AI skip and the NetServer and NetClient waiting for up to 60+ seconds on init before disconnect (relevant in case someone did enable AIs or any other code being that slow. The actual patch to use threading in the NetClient is unpublished).
There are a number of other committed C++ fixes, why spend additional effort to provide a partial release?
Usually the lobby becomes empty after the first day of a new release due to the lobby subject and the absence of players and games. The intention is that players can play the game without crashing in several ways and to push the players into actually installing the update, rather than continuing to get N reports about the bugs fixed this summer every day (including the macOS thing and some other OOS errors).
The mod version is not changed, so that people can still replay their old replays, continue their savegames, can use the same mods (which should all be fully compatible except fgod which is currently incompatible with our terms in two ways, so fpre rebasing that means he would fix that.).

@vladislavbelov In the staff discussions, it seemed that we had reached a consensus on creating this new room, but leaving the other version numbers intact (in order to push people into upgrading, without forcing them). On top of what elexis said, we are legally obliged to push the lobby users into using A23b, so that they can accept the new terms.
The consensus in that topic is the reason why I asked user1 to commit this, but if you want I can formally accept this revision.

@smiley I think that answers your question. As for providing updates as "patches" to avoid the 1GB download, it would be great to have this, but it is a difficult task. The idea of using torrenting directly in the engine had been brought up long ago. I don't know if we have a ticket. Anyways it would be great to have this at some point: it is a waste for A23b, but it is equally a waste for other versions, where we could just make them download the new art.

In rP21943#31690, @Itms wrote:

The consensus in that topic is the reason why I asked user1 to commit this, but if you want I can formally accept this revision.

The commit contains only few style mistakes. So the accept isn't required. My point that the commit doesn't have any linked diff/ticket or link to its conversation. My first thought was are these bots and rooms already exist.