The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$archive_pages - Line: 2 - File: printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code PHP 8.2.24 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code 2 errorHandler->error_callback
/printthread.php 287 eval
/printthread.php 117 printthread_multipage



Renegade Projects Network Forums
Revision  #0035 - Printable Version

+- 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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

RE: Revision  #0035 - Renegade - 29.11.2006

So in the end, we're going with a Windows-like versioning scheme now?
(e.g. the official name is Windows XP, but the internal version number is 5.x.y Build z)

RE: Revision  #0035 - Bobingabout - 29.11.2006

i think the RP for mods by default should be >=, however, there should be a RP flag somewhere that should be set when things change, so, a mod saying 1.07 using RP 1.08SE would come up with a warning messages "Warning! Something in Rockpatch 1.07 is not in Rockpatch 1.08b, you may experience errors if you use this version for this mod".

RE: Revision  #0035 - Nighthawk - 29.11.2006

CnCVK Wrote:Mad Mad...examples please Mad Mad

Almost everything that's been said so far. Just about everyone that has commented on this topic has stated their preference to the original version system, for practical reasons (in the case of Marshall) and to get their heads around what version is what (in the case of regular modders), yet you seem utterly adamant to maintain your 'Second Edition', 'Third Edition' etc. format.

RE: Revision  #0035 - Bobingabout - 30.11.2006

i have another problem with the Second Edition, Third Edition thing, look what happens:
1.08, 1.08SE, 1.08TE, 1.08FE, 1.08FE, 1.08SE, 1.08SE, 1.08EE, 1.08NE, 1.08TE, and so on, with the exception of Eighth and Ninth, they all use S F and T.

RE: Revision  #0035 - Guest - 30.11.2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_control

RE: Revision  #0035 - Marshall - 30.11.2006

I think if we're going to change from the established format it should be to use
major.minor.revision
If we use a revision number instead of letter then I wouldn't need a separate integer form.
major.minor.revision can easily be separated in program, and has the added advantage of allowing any number of revisions (not just limited to 27).
The revisions that CnCVK is presently using should not be separate to the bugfix number (b/SE) so:
1.08 = 1.8.0 [or simply 1.8]
1.08 SE = 1.8.1
1.08 SE #1234 = 1.8.2
1.08 SE #5678 = 1.8.3
1.10 = 1.10.0 [or simply 1.10]
...but even if CncVK was adamant that a separate bugfix and revision number was neccessary then we have:
1.08 #13579 = 1.8.0.13579
1.08 SE = 1.8.1.0 [or simply 1.8.1]
1.08 SE #1234 = 1.8.1.1234
1.08 SE #5678 = 1.8.1.5678
I would also be inclined to encourage the next TX release to use major.minor.revision
This would mean a very simple format that everyone can understand as well as meaning it could be stored as a single string.
It can also be expanded to any number of branches (1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8...) - I can future proof that right now.

Please use this CnCVK, please! It includes the best of both worlds!

RE: Revision  #0035 - Renegade - 30.11.2006

Any particular reason 1.08 can't be 1.0.8?

RE: Revision  #0035 - Marshall - 30.11.2006

No reason at all!
Major.medium.minor.revision is just as easy

RE: Revision  #0035 - VK - 01.12.2006

However I told about it Smile
You can use any internal version system.
I want what you read a string and display it.
but you compare versions using your internal version
internal version not for people; for programs Smile
So for example
Code:
VersionStr=Rock Patch 1.08 SE ; name by me
VersionInt=99999; anything, that you want :D
VersionStr you show in installer title and etc Smile
If you want, you can include revision to version check Big Grin

Quote:Almost everything that's been said so far. Just about everyone that has commented on this topic has stated their preference to the original version system, for practical reasons (in the case of Marshall) and to get their heads around what version is what (in the case of regular modders), yet you seem utterly adamant to maintain your 'Second Edition', 'Third Edition' etc. format.
The version system is most important thing in RockPatch, isn't it?

Quote:1.08SE, 1.08TE, 1.08FE, 1.08FE, 1.08SE, 1.08SE, 1.08EE, 1.08NE, 1.08TE, and so on, with the exception of Eighth and Ninth, they all use S F and T.
If all will go good, SE version not need at all!

BTW, Rock Patch since the next version have internal version system too
@Marshall:
If you want add RP EXE file version check, I can inform you about it Smile

Quote:For RockPatchVersion= , how will this work? Are you saying that a mod will only ever work with a single version of RP?
I think so, but if someone against it, and this someone can prove it that it bad, I not add this tagTongue

RE: Revision #0035 - Marshall - 01.12.2006

Possibly some confusion here.
My proposed major.minor.revision will be used as the internal format as well as the displayed format (at least within Launch Base).

If you are going to include an internal checker in RockPatch then please can you use the format I described above, so that it is consistent between users. (VersionInt=major.minor.revision)
So not actually a single integer, but dot-separated integer list.
The exact list of integers you can define in the RP-Gen program that I am working on and will release to you asap. As for VersionStr, yeah you can use whatever you want, but Launch Base will display the VersionInt.

I think a minimum version rule should be used rather than a specific-version. Please let me know what you decide though so I can implement the rule in LB.

RE: Revision #0035 - FS-21 - 01.12.2006

CnCVK Wrote:BTW, Rock Patch since the next version have internal version system too
@Marshall:
If you want add RP EXE file version check, I can inform you about it Smile
*Suggestion*
Why not share any information directly in the RP wiki instead of only distribute this information to only 1 person?

RE: Revision  #0035 - Renegade - 01.12.2006

"the RP wiki"...

RE: Revision  #0035 - Marshall - 02.12.2006

With regard to the version format (which I am now implementing for all Launch Base versioning)
You can include leading zeroes if you want to.
Example: 1.08.0035 == 1.8.35 == 1.000000008.035
The number will be used internally, the string will be used in messages, labels, etc.

Please note:
1.80 is greater than 1.8
1.8.0 == 1.8

So, a mod might say it requires RockPatch version "1.08.35"
But the RockPatch itself will say that it is version "1.08.0035"
Launch Base will report that the appropriate version is installed.

The exact number of branches (3 in the examples above) is yet to be finalised by CnCVK - he will be able to control this in the RP-Gen program.
With any luck, CnCVK will use the same version format in the RockPatch internal version check (as for the version names SE/TE/whatever that's a separate thing that will appear in in-game messages/labels etc and is totally up to CnCVK)

RE: Revision  #0035 - VK - 02.12.2006

Quote:CnCVK will use the same version format
Now I have a short version string, full version string, revision number Smile
so I should add a RockPatchVersion tag?

RE: Revision  #0035 - Marshall - 04.12.2006

That's up to you. Launch Base will take care of it so it's not really neccessary as far as I'm concerned.
But if you do include your own check, please can you tell me if you are using a specific-version rule or a minimum-version rule, so that I canuse the same. Please, also, if you include your own check, can it use the same branched format as Launch Base (e.g. "1.08.0035") ?