+- Renegade Projects Network Forums (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com)
+-- Forum: Inject the Battlefield (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=60)
+--- Forum: News from the Battlefield (https://forums.renegadeprojects.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=20)
+--- Thread: Revision  #0035 (/showthread.php?tid=524)
RE: Revision  #0035 - pd - 26.11.2006
CnCVK Wrote:I will talk later
Sorry, but I'm finding this ridiculous.
You don't have any true reasons to introduce that new version numbering system, which just makes everything more complicated than it already is.
I really don't understand what's wrong with the old system.
Quote:What's problem?Problem is that people are familar with the old format and that everything is set up to work with it.
I'd suggest you finally bring a reason for changing it...
RE: Revision #0035 - Renegade - 26.11.2006
Say, is there a special reason you want to stick to this specific naming convention, against everybody else's liking?
I know you're the coder, and we're at your mercy, but given that RP had an accepted, working naming scheme before, I don't quite understand your persistence on this issue.
I mean, in a perfect world, you wouldn't even need secondary versions. So why fight so hard to keep a naming convention for them that nobody likes?
Edit: Hmpf, pd stealing my spot in line -_-
was replying to VK.
RE: Revision #0035 - Marshall - 27.11.2006
CnCVK Wrote:Version=1.08 SEI really need to have an integer form of the version so that the program can check to see if a version is less than, equal to or greater than another version. I can't do this using the string form. Granted, the string form is need for humans to see and understand, but the integer form is needed for the program to do it's job.
And I need to be able to calculate the string form from the integer form. That is most important.
It's really easy for me to stick to the old format (not to mention easy for everyone else to understand), because all the routines in my programs already use the old format.
RE: Revision  #0035 - VK - 27.11.2006
Quote:f a version is less than, equal to or greater than another versionNot need at all, because RP versions is incompatible with each other.
Quote: because all the routines in my programs already use the old format.You need change only ten code lines (but not 1000)
I think string form is better
Quote:I don't quite understand your persistence on this issue.I not do it because ONLY I want it,
I do it because I have an idea
RE: Revision  #0035 - pd - 27.11.2006
It's asthetic reasons (I know his idea, I won't tell cause I promised not to).
As said on MSN, people won't care about the version name, the content is what's important.
Instead of caring about such little details you should rather care about other little details such as the missing snowmd.ini fix
RE: Revision #0035 - Renegade - 28.11.2006
CnCVK Wrote:I not do it because ONLY I want it,Dude. You're slowing, even holding progress on a community effort here. So if your seemingly purely stubborn persistence to hang onto this annoying and unwanted new naming scheme has any deeper reason, then share it now - because I rather doubt Marsh is gonna push back his launcher another six months until you finally decide to show us in RP 1.08 TFE (twenty-fifth edition) why you needed string version names so desperately.
I do it because I have an idea
We're very grateful for your coding, and, since our very motivation for modding is (re-)design, we're understanding when it comes to CoolStuff™ - but you're not gonna keep us as happy fanboys by annoying us to death with your weird antics.
Before, it was 1.00, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, ..., with the occasional b or c bugfix version. Now it's 1.08, 1.08 SE, 1.08 TE, 1.08 FE, ..., with a weekly Revision #xyz - in other words, you released what? four? five? versions so far, but still haven't moved the version number a single bit up. It's confusing the hell out of everybody.
And as if that wasn't bad enough, people don't even know about it. Hadn't I updated the original 1.08 SE thread at PPM every once in a while, and force-moved the latest revision thread into the news, people would still think the original 1.08 SE was the latest version of RP.
Marsh has a working, tried-and-true algorithm that works with all his stuff, all prior RockPatch versions, and uses a community-wide accepted version numbering format. If you want him to change all that just for your Great Confusing Version Renaming Plan, you better give him a damn good reason. ASAP. 'cause as much as we love your work, it's no good for any of us if we can't work with it. Mentally or technically.
Sorry if I'm walking a thin line here, guys, but somebody had to say it. This can't go on forever.
RE: Revision  #0035 - Marshall - 28.11.2006
I heartily agree with Renegade. Further more:
CnCVK Wrote:Not need at all, because RP versions is incompatible with each other.Since when? Yeah, okay, sometimes a feature gets reworked or removed, but most of the time a mod should remain compatible with subsequent versions of RP. At the moment, it is understood to be a work in progress, but eventually a mod should not need changing between one version and the next - hence the need for 'greater than or equal to'.
However, even if you are happy to insist that versions are not compatible, then I still need an integer form for the LB auto-update facility. Okay, so I *could* just say 'if not equal to' in order to use strings, but all the other mods use integer in order to allow the 'update-instead-of-full-download' feature.
Even if you're happy for RP not to use update-instead-of-full, I'd still have to rewrite part of the auto-update code to make a special exception for the RP and do something different. But why waste time when the integer form works so well?
RE: Revision  #0035 - TheMan - 28.11.2006
Why is it so big discussion about these rivion? as long as you can install it is it good.
(I feel like eeveyone gonna bash me now
)
RE: Revision  #0035 - Nighthawk - 28.11.2006
But there is problems with the installation too, new versions are incompatible with older ones. Tags keep getting renamed which buggers up older, already released mods, why must the names be changed? What was wrong with the older tag name? Also, TheMan, they are complaining because RP's current version naming system is interfering with the new mod manager Marshall is making.
Also, CnCVK, I do agree with Renegade on what he is saying, but I also think that at times you seem to go by what you want rather than the wishes of the community, though, as Renegade says, you are the coder and we are at your mercy.
RE: Revision  #0035 - VK - 28.11.2006
Quote:RP 1.08 TFE (twenty-fifth edition)more 1.08 versions not come
Quote:compatible with subsequent versions of RPDon't forget: I don't edit source code and don't compile it
and this stop the progress
Quote:but you're not gonna keep us as happy fanboys by annoying us to death with your weird antics.I only ask one thing not more...
Quote:Before, it was 1.00, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, ..., with the occasional b or c bugfix version. Now it's 1.08, 1.08 SE, 1.08 TE, 1.08 FE, ..., with a weekly Revision #xyz - in other words, you released what? four? five? versions so far, but still haven't moved the version number a single bit up. It's confusing the hell out of everybody.You can use any system in installer
At the end, it don't concerns me at all
At least a game will show my version
RE: Revision  #0035 - Nighthawk - 28.11.2006
CnCVK Wrote:Quote:Before, it was 1.00, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, ..., with the occasional b or c bugfix version. Now it's 1.08, 1.08 SE, 1.08 TE, 1.08 FE, ..., with a weekly Revision #xyz - in other words, you released what? four? five? versions so far, but still haven't moved the version number a single bit up. It's confusing the hell out of everybody.You can use any system in installer
At the end, it don't concerns me at all
At least a game will show my version
But what we're asking is what was wrong with the old system that you had to change it to a confusing system that is interfering with the community (well, Marshall) mod-manager project?
RE: Revision  #0035 - Marshall - 29.11.2006
How about this as a compromise:
Officially, the version format remains as XYYZZ. This is what Launch Base will display in the prerequisite messages.
If you go for SE/TE/FE/whatever, then these version 'names' won't affect the official naming format.
These version names can be used in the RP installer and in LB for the RP itself, they just won't be used in the official versioning sense for mod prerequisites.
This is assuming that the SE/TE/revision versions are not to be used for released mods. If they are then the version names makes no sense and I really don't see how I can support it properly with LB, which is supposed to be a nice simple way to manage everything (for both modders and users).
RE: Revision #0035 - Bobingabout - 29.11.2006
just have some things, like launch base, reference RP as 1.08b, then after that point, the RP installer will take over and call itself 1.08SE
RE: Revision  #0035 - VK - 29.11.2006
Yep, it's good idea
so two versions: Official version as string and check-update version as number
Quote:Since when? Yeah, okay, sometimes a feature gets reworked or removed, but most of the time a mod should remain compatible with subsequent versions of RP. At the moment, it is understood to be a work in progress, but eventually a mod should not need changing between one version and the next - hence the need for 'greater than or equal to'.But we had discussed RockPatchVersion and UseRockPatch tags
Quote:reference RP as 1.08b,as 10802 I think
Quote: I also think that at times you seem to go by what you want rather than the wishes of the community,
...examples please
RE: Revision  #0035 - Marshall - 29.11.2006
So, for Launch Base you're saying I should use a different displayed format to that what is shown elsewhere? I can do that if you think it's best, you'll just need to input a build number into the RP-Gen program I'm working on.
For RockPatchVersion= , how will this work? Are you saying that a mod will only ever work with a single version of RP?
If that is the case then I need to update Launch Base to use the same rule (at present, LB uses a minimum version rule rather than a specific version rule)