Talk:Custom Track Regions
How many?
I want to ask if someone here knows how many Regions could be created. I see it goes till 299 now but till where can it go? --MrSkopelos27 15:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Restrictions
Should we not have restrictions on how regions are used? If you haven't noticed, we've managed to spend a rather measly amount of entries over the span of 200 regions, which is quite a sad accomplishment if you ask me. First off, what does it mean to "reserve" a region? Does it imply no one else can use that particular region once you reserve it? And if so, what determines what regions and how much of it you should get? Obviously no one has really given this much thought and we've all just been taking up regions left and right, making this list very fragmented. I propose that we remove all reservations for packs without any releases, because really? I also propose a set limit on how many slots a pack/distro family can have before it must begin recycling slots. 8 slots should be enough for an entire pack/distro family, considering old ones should become inactive over the course of 8 iterations, as it should be. If the proposed 8 slot limit passes, I also propose that pack/distro families have their slots aligned by multiples of 8 to prevent fragmentation. If you feel that 8 is too restricting then fine, 16 or any other powers of 2 will also suffice. I'm not expecting many packs/distros anyway (successful ones anyway), but I just want to clean up this mess. --Torran (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have reserved the regions, because I plan to release more distribs and I want use IDs in sequence order (ID6 and region use equal 2 lower digits). And in Germany we use this regions (at least the one of the current distribution). So my reservation is to avoid conflicts. So removing my reservations is contra productive.
- Wiimm (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it'll make more sense if I demonstrate what an alignment of 8 would look like. Check the Sandbox. The example is what the table would look like after a realignment of 8. You'll notice that most of them are not aligned properly and have had padding introduced as a result. You'll also notice that not every family is only limited to 8 regions. Having an alignment of 8 simply means that when you do reserve, you reserve in increments of 8. --Torran (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree Hanno, that blocking to 8 is irrelevant. You destroy already assigned a´slots. I never occupied slot 98 and some other, but slots up to 159 for good reasons. And slot 99 us regularly used for testing. Your edits look absolute arbitrary. The only good thing, that you have done, is the removal of long reservations.
- Wiimm (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The block size guarantees that each distribution will have at least one share of regions that it may use. What the block size is, however, can be considered. Larger block sizes are recommended only to reduce the total possible number of distributions and enforce competition, with 256 regions being evenly divisible by 8. The block size also forces a distribution that intends on using online regions to use its complete slot. It would be wasteful otherwise, not only to itself but to other distributions. Eventually, the list will fill to the brim with distributions. When that happens, fragmentation will look all the more obvious, especially since no measures have been taken to reduce it other than my proposed slot idea. Also, reservations of regions is nonsense. Unless the region intends to be used to its full extent, it should not take up space on the table. Therefore, the restriction of reserving regions in groups of slots was formed to counteract this. Regions used solely for the purpose of debugging is also unnecessary. That is why you have your own set of regions that you have already reserved to use. Numerical or hexadecimal patterns serve no purpose or worth and are not considered in this argument. --Torran (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)