Talk:Java Edition version history/Development versions

Sign your posts with ~ and always add new posts at the very bottom after previous sections.

I believe this post is getting too long.
I think there should be a section per update. As this page is getting way to long.


 * I don't know what you mean. There's one row per update. Num  ber  maniac  04:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It casues my Chrome tab to freeze for about 15 seconds, and I run a Core i7 3770 procesor. Maybe add a separate page for snapshots from older versions? 72.227.66.91 22:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree; it's currently one of the largest pages on the wiki. One page per major version number would be reasonable, though all the beta versions could probably go on a single page. However, before the page can be split, Version link needs to be modified to point to the new pages correctly. -- Orthotope 23:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The page could be a lot shorter if versions before 1.0 were moved to a different page. -- Numbermaniac  - T  - C 01:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a section per update. As this page is getting way to long. -- age2empires2020 14:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Crashed, but I don't know where to put it.
I don't have a Mojang bug tracker account, but Minecraft crashed. I am going to put it on the issues page, but is there any option of what I should do in the future? Pokechu22 01:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Get a bug tracker account and post it there instead in the future. The Wiki is NOT a substitute for the official bug tracker, and bugs posted here are not likely to be properly reported or even fixed. As well, if you are experiencing a crash, make sure you can replicate the results before posting it as a bug, as it may just be a technical issue with how Minecraft is set up on your computer or a similar issue. Cavemaneca 00:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Misinformation regarding Linux
The article states that on GNU/Linux, snapshots need to be run in a separate way, when in fact the same method(put minecraft.jar in .minecraft/bin/) works on all OSes, including Linux. In the blog post that was linked to, the poster just confused the launcher minecraft.jar and the actual game minecraft.jar.

88.195.199.75 23:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed :) Intel iX 18:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Items now rotate on their own and are blocky, I think
And they are not one pixel think anymore, either. Does anybody else have this? - Creepers explode, don&#39;tcha know? 15:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been like this since 1.4.6. --☆ Sven ? ! 17:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. - Creepers explode, don&#39;tcha know? 18:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Bug Fixes
So basically, there seem to be two different ways that the Bug Fixes can be listed.

1. The bugs are reworded from the official issue tracker, with "Fixed" placed at the beginning. E.g.
 * Fixed minecart sound getting stuck on long cart rides and getting bumby, choppy

2. The bugs are kept the same as on the issue tracker, with the Issue number placed in front of it. E.g.
 * - Trapped chests only transmit redstone signal via redstone dust

So personally my view is that the bug reports should use number 1 for a few reasons. Firstly, for consistency. Seeing every other bug report on the wiki is done this way, it should stay the same unless someone is willing to redo every other bug fix section with No. 2. Secondly, seeing that Dinoguy's main point is that you can see more info by clicking on the link - well honestly, the bug that has been fixed is already in its more concise and proper form, and it is unable to be replicated in future versions, rendering this process unnecessary. Thirdly, should people still want to be able to view the bug tracker, this clickable link: (Issue tracker) next to Notable bugs (Complete bug list) will suffice.

Please give your opinion on this issue. Goandgoo. Talk - Contribs 01:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that we should mark it FIXED when the fix comes out. And I agree that the link to the tracker should be there. - Creepers explode, don&#39;tcha know? 01:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Historically, we haven't had links to the bug tracker because it didn't exist yet. Most of the older bugs won't have tracker entries, so there isn't really a need to revise the bug sections from previous versions. I do like having direct links to the individual bug reports; maybe the two styles could be combined, such as:


 * Fixed - Trapped chests only transmit redstone signal via redstone dust


 * -- Orthotope 02:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Linking to each bug on a bug tracker is a pretty common thing for a wiki based around a piece of software to do. It doesn't matter about consistency, if it really bothers you so much then go through and add the bug tracker links to the rest of the page.
 * The links add more information and take up just about as much space as putting "Fixed". (Which was pretty dumb anyway, it's in the bug fixes section why do we need to say they were fixed?) –ultradude25 ᐸ Talk Contribs 02:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reason the bug descriptions have to be copied directly from the bug tracker entries; the only reason I kept reverting to them is because I was too lazy to look through the reworded versions to see if any of them were worth using.
 * I agree with Ultradude in that saying "Fixed" on each bug description is simply redundant to the header they're listed under.
 * This all segues into another point I've been thinking about: now that there is an official bug tracker - and, as a result, it has been months since either Jeb or dinnerbone have made any bug-related edits on the wiki - why are we continuing to create a new bug list for each new version here on the wiki? We need to encourage people to report bugs on the official tracker, where they actually stand a chance of being seen and fixed now, and the first step to doing that is undoubtedly to archive the whole on-wiki bug list pages thing. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 01:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so I have changed the bug reports to the new format. And also, I am so glad an admin has finally realised that creating the issues page is unnecessary. It was discussed to remove them ages ago (when it was released at the end of October) at http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Talk:Issues. I am so glad they have finally stopped being created.
 * Goandgoo. Talk - Contribs 04:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Another tweak to zombie behavior.
With snapshot 13w03a, zombies were made more difficult to dispatch safely with a bow -- when shot by a player, they immediately start tracking him/her, even when well outside of the range at which they normally detect players. I have yet to see this mentioned anywhere on the wiki. 216.252.14.170 20:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Complete Bug List Removal
I suggest removing the Wiki-link for the Complete Bug lists for the snapshots & replace it with a link to the official bug tracker. People have still been putting bugs on the wiki page even though it is no longer used by Mojang. Existing pages should stay as an archive however. DarkWolff 20:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

13w03a Re-Upload
Can we remove the link for the 13w03a snapshot since it's technically not available because of the re-upload? Roll18 03:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I vote we should merge the reupload with 13w03a. I don't see the benefit of keeping them separate since it was immediately replaced. DarkWolff 15:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I personally believe it should stay so people who have downloaded the original one are not confused if there is some unusual buggy behaviour. Goandgoo. Talk - Contribs 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

13w07a has incorrect Notable Bugs issue tracker link
The link should be "https://mojang.atlassian.net/browse/MC/fixforversion/11200" 70.26.90.7 21:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Gotta love that bugtracker.
http://mojang.atlassian.net/maintenance/images/DownforMaintenance_CharlieZap.gif Just gotta love it. Pokechu22 00:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

1.6??!! Already??!!
1.5 still hasn't come out, yet 1.6 is already in planning? Really? And should we add a title to this page or wait until 1.5 is actually released? Num ber  maniac  06:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Curse Client
This feels honestly like shameless promoting rather than something that should be included on the Snapshots page. The link to each snapshot's download is already on the page. And there are plenty of other places you can go to get the snapshots; why include just the Curse client? The Curse client part should go in Programs and editors and not here. Chilangosta 17:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but curse does own this wiki, so we probably shouldn't remove it. (Like the content author rewards thing on the main page).  It probably belongs in the programs and editors page as well, though. Pokechu22 23:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe a note should be added that this client is useless for Linux users. Perseleub--85.23.25.179 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bug at 1.5pre
Very rarely, items and blocks duplicate when trying to put items using 1-9 buttons. Happened to me once. Please someone put that in.5.52.68.36 19:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Report it at the issue tracker. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 20:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * MC-341 Kumasasa 20:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

13w11a Still In 1.5 Section
We need a 1.6 snapshots and pre-releases section for 13w11a. Never mind, it's just for 1.5.1 :/ Piraka~Mistika 15:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC) 1.5.1? Is that in the future releases page? Upcoming Features Num  ber  maniac  21:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Donkey Texture
I noticed that someone added the hidden donkey texture to the list of features added.

It is actually possible to spawn a donkey using the spawn egg. Me and a friend both spawned a donkey. Should this be added to the list?
 * Possible chance to spawn a donkey.

Throex '''TALK 20:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are the undead horses listed as a version of the *donkey* specifically?. And why doesn't the mule variant get a mention? These are all versions of the horse, and should be under the same top-level bullet point

108.220.161.85 11:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Regional difficulty?
What is the source for this? Can´t find any official word on it. Anyone has more details on how this would work in practice? 190.249.121.130 02:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dinnerbone talked about it on Twitter on April 10 (for example, ), but I don't see anything confirming that it was added to 13w16a. -- Orthotope 06:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Seems like he wrote that he already implemeted it, but hasn´t balanced it yet. Anyone can confirm that this is in effect in the newest snapshot? (I am out of town and can´t play Minecraft at the moment, but the concept seems interesting..)--190.249.121.130 20:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"10 most popular bugs"
They do not belong on this page. Since they affect multiple versions, they are out of the scope of any one version. Also, as you noted in your recent attempt to add them, Age2empires2020, it is not the wiki's job to inform the public of bugs. That's what the tracker is for. It's not like the tracker is private only to wiki editors. Your last bug list addition was also very "non-wiki" by calling out Orthotope and generally sounding meta, which isn't a very good contribution anyways. 16:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Non-wiki doesn't half describe it. You undid an edit by an administrator on the wiki. Really?! And he had all reason to undo it, as Kanegasi just described. -- Numbermaniac  - T  - C 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Administrators don't have any more weight than normal users in terms of consensus, even though they are naturally held at a higher standard. If someone disagrees with an edit, regardless of who did it, proper reasoning must be stated when reverting (either in the summary or on the associated talk page if more room is needed). "Seriously LEAVE MY POSTS ALONE!" is not proper reasoning. If the first person disagrees with the removal, a discussion should start on the talk page instead of a readdition. At this point, no more changes should occur unless a consensus is reached. This isn't by any means a rule or policy, and many changes have went by smoothly with more than one revert or addition due to a clearer reasoning in a following edit summary. This is just a minimalistic approach that conflicts should follow.
 * Orthotope was correct that 10 generic non-version specific bugs do not belong in any version entry. I also believe this doesn't belong in the main version history page where Age2empires2020 also added the same thing, but that has been there a while and seems to be uncontested. They don't fit here and are out of the scope of version-specific listing. I reverted it for the same reason, as well as for the inappropriate remarks Age2empires2020 included. Age2empires2020 should've created a discussion at this point, which I have done here. "The straw that broke the camel's back" is Age2empires2020's assertion that itouchmasterpro's revert was an invalid edit, which made it obvious Age2empires2020 was not going to quit reverting what we were removing.  22:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The following are the 10 most popular bugs,
 * These bugs have been the most popular for the last 6 months,
 * listed since the bug tracking service has been online.
 * These bugs have been known since version 1.0
 * Some of these bugs are from the creation of 1.5
 * As such being so prevalent and because they are known issue,
 * I have tried to post them for numerous reasons.
 * One to inform the public to cast there vote and to "complain" for a better lack of word.
 * Second to inform them that they are known bugs.
 * Among other reasons,
 * Personally its to show how much lack of effort minecraft has put into minecraft itself.
 * I find it a joke that they are upgrading it to Java 6. As it runs on Java 5 now.
 * Current version of Java is Java 7 with Java 8 to be released this year.
 * Conversion wise its not a huge job.
 * Adding carpet - Same code as snow
 * Adding Horses - Same code as the Mod
 * Adding Rope - Same Code as the Mod
 * They basically are cutting and pasting and calling it and update.
 * Instead of fixing the current issues they just keep creating more issue.
 * I would rather them refine the code and make the game more stable and fix the current issue,
 * instead of putting out "fake" updates to the game.
 * On that note they are at 1.6 that's more than half way to 2.0
 * By now most of these bugs should have been fixed.
 * Bottom line minecraft is coded very poorly and in all honestly needs a full rewrite of its code.
 * MC-78 – Villagers crowd into a single building
 * MC-92 – Slab & stairs lighting incorrect
 * MC-108 – Droppers, Dispensers and Pistons activate when blocks are providing power diagonally or two blocks above
 * MC-129 – Chunks don't display properly
 * MC-119 – Mobs sinking through solid blocks
 * MC-911 – Sunlight in big caves and under overhangs
 * MC-1018 – Black Lighting
 * MC-1794 – White stitching on polygon edges / Lines or dots on block edges
 * MC-2025 – Animals going out of fenced areas/suffocate in blocks when loading chunks –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Age2empires2020 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 11:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * MC-78 – Villagers crowd into a single building
 * MC-92 – Slab & stairs lighting incorrect
 * MC-108 – Droppers, Dispensers and Pistons activate when blocks are providing power diagonally or two blocks above
 * MC-129 – Chunks don't display properly
 * MC-119 – Mobs sinking through solid blocks
 * MC-911 – Sunlight in big caves and under overhangs
 * MC-1018 – Black Lighting
 * MC-1794 – White stitching on polygon edges / Lines or dots on block edges
 * MC-2025 – Animals going out of fenced areas/suffocate in blocks when loading chunks –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Age2empires2020 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 11:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * MC-2025 – Animals going out of fenced areas/suffocate in blocks when loading chunks –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Age2empires2020 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 11:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * Please note that all posts go to the bottom of a talk page, rather than the top. Also note that if you had read what Kanegasi wrote here before writing that, you would understand why you were constantly reverted. Also blaming the development of Minecraft is not going to support your argument. –  Goandgoo ᐸ  Talk  Contribs  Edit count 02:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The wiki definitely is not the place to voice your opinion. Your opinion that Mojang exhibits "lack of effort" as well as assuming they "copy and paste" code is quite appalling and shows ignorance on your part. Voting those top bugs even more isn't going to get them fixed faster and the fact that they haven't been fixed does not reflect Mojang's effort in the slightest. You can't just wave a wand at some code and fix things. Your idea that all game progress should stop in order to spend all available time on fixing bugs that could be improbable to fix is absurd, as well as your implication that what they have added isn't even an update. For example, coding the game for Java 6 is a huge update, and using 6 instead of 7 is the best course of action for stability. Many companies and applications code this way for stability. It is extremely bad practice to code anything with cutting edge versions of frameworks. It's unstable and you could get more problems from the framework than you do from your own code. Starting with 5 in the first place was a very wise decision on Notch's part, which reached the peak of its stability near the end of 2009.
 * On topic with the addition of these top bugs, they are already listed in the page under the applicable version and do not need to be listed twice. Feel free to go through both this page and the Version history page to ensure these particular bugs are listed under the version they were reported for. They do not need to be listed in the way you are trying to list them. If anything, we could list a link to the popular bugs at the top of these two pages, but even then, it's unnecessary. I'll accept that single link, but my contribution to consensus is that your addition of these top bugs is unwanted and continued addition of these, taking into account your previous attempts, constitutes as spamming.  03:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)