Revision  #0035

[Bobingabout]

i'd say go for it, R:ROTC would use that

[Marshall]

Okay I've started working on a program for CnCVK to generate dual comaptable LB/nonLB RockPatch installers, with multilanguage option (English required, German/French/Chinese/Korean optional).
This will not help facilitate revisions. Although at present the RockPatch installer is just a little over 300 KB so it's not exactly a big hit to just treat each revision as the next version.
The version format being used is the traditional XYYZZ (10900 = 1.09, 10905 = 1.09e) so there can be 26 revisions before moving onto a new version.

If the installer detects Launch Base it will install the files for Launch Base. If Launch Base is not detected, it will work in the same way that the current installer does.

For language detection this is still using pd's getlang.exe that works on langmd.mix
The installer itself remains in English.

This will take me several days to complete but once I have I will send it to CnCVK so he can begin using it.

[Bobingabout]

do you think you could make a little addition for me?
as i said before, panda treats getlang.exe as a threat, so, if getlang fails, instead of saying "American English will be used" have a drop down menu to manually select the language

[VK]

The new installers will not be multi-language. CnCVK will need to create a separate installer for each language.

Changes in Rock Patch multi-language system:
I will create only English version of ROCKPATCH.MIX; for another languages, RP.CSF in YR directory will be overwritten to built-in english RP.CSF

The version format being used is the traditional XYYZZ (10900 = 1.09, 10905 = 1.09e) so there can be 26 revisions before moving onto a new version.

No. Please use XXYYYYZ
example: 01 0009 1 = Rock Patch 1.09 SE
no revision number here.

Try to install Revision #0035 again

[pd]

why don't you simply stick to that XYYZZ format?
it's easier for everybody!

EDIT:
same problem as before, the progress simply halts.
see attachement.

[Marshall]

Please use XXYYYYZ
example: 01 0009 1 = Rock Patch 1.09 SE

How long has RockPatch being going to bring us up to 1.08b (or SE as you say)?
At the current rate of version progress we're still looking at 10 years even if ZZ is always 00, before hitting version 2.0.
Also, how am I supposed to get "SE" from "1", or whatever other version names you use in future?

why don't you simply stick to that XYYZZ format?
it's easier for everybody!

I must agree with pd on this. The old format (which is being used for the TX too) is so much easier. And with LB Mod Creator, mod authors need to be able to understand this build number if they want RockPAtch to be a prerequisite of their mod.
I envisage the following:
10900 = 1.09
10901 = 1.09a (instead of SE)
10902 = 1.09b (instead of SE revision #1234)
10926 = 1.09z (instead of SE revision #34509736502)
I think it's just so much easier sticking to XYYZZ (remember X can be anything, such that 123456726 = 12345.67z

Changes in Rock Patch multi-language system:
I will create only English version of ROCKPATCH.MIX; for another languages, RP.CSF in YR directory will be overwritten to built-in english RP.CSF

Okay, I can make the program understand that. However, what if you need to add language specific graphics in future? In that case I would have to rewrite the program. Would it not be helpful to future proof and just have the mix files? (the program will handle file patching so you won't be getting a huge file bloat - only the changes are actually bundled). Let me know how you want to proceed!

[VK]

same problem as before, the progress simply halts.

Did you copy it to YR directory?
I will look again

XYYZZ

OK, you can use any format, which have:
1) Version number 1.08, 1.09
2) Edition (<none>, SE, TE, ... if need)
3) Probably revision number up to #1000

I will send PM at the nearest time with some details...

BTW, now you can create a Rock Patch 1.08 SE Revision #0035 installer now

[pd]

oh damn, I gotta apologize, it's all been my mistake...
I copied the zip into the YR dir and ran the setup from in there... <.<

it works fine now

I wonder what happened to me that I'm that stupid...

[FS-21]

XYYZZ

OK, you can use any format, which have:
1) Version number 1.08, 1.09
2) Edition (<none>, SE, TE, ... if need)
3) Probably revision number up to #1000

Then your new format is (or should to be):
NNXXYZZZZ
NN -> v1, v2, v3...
XX -> 08, 09, 10, ...
Y -> (0=nothing,1=SE,2=TE,... until 9, if need)
ZZZZ -> Revisions (until #9999 revisions)
Note: each "Y" increment could to be re-started the "ZZZZ" revision number because #0001 revision from the "TE" should to be more newer than the #9999 from the "SE"... 9*10000 available revisions

Your next version 1.09 (revision "#0001"? ) will be translated as 010900010 or will to be the same version code?

[VK]

revision is my internal back up number
so it can't start from #0001

it's easier for everybody!

However, RP version not for users, for programs
BTW, We can store it as string without any conversion,
or 32-bit encrypt number

Also I think about UseRockPatch=[bool] tag and RockPatchVersion=[??] tag (in RULESMD.INI).
UseRockPatch will be used for mods, which is using RP.
RockPatchVersion tag will specify RP version for mod.

If the version is not equal to the installed version - MessageBox with error message.
It prevent from some n00b with messages:
"I had installed RP, run a mod and I have IE"

any suggestions?

[Marshall]

However, RP version not for users, for programs

Not quite - here I think there is some misunderstanding.
If a mod requires the RP then it will specify what Version is required. LB mods will tell LB what Build [internal integer version] is required. LB will use this internally to check the RP version. LB will translate the Build into the string Version and display it to the user [e.g: "This mod requires version %s of RockPatch", GetRPVersion(ModRPBuild)]
Mod authors need to tell LB Mod Creator (or their own programs) what version is required, by giving it the build number.
That is why we need a standard integer form of the version number as well as the version name.
Version name is merely what gets displayed to the ordinary user, but has to be consistent: At the moment, if an LB mod requires RP Build 10802 then LB will claim the mod needs version 1.08b.

I'd prefer to keep XYYZZ because it is the same as the TX so is simpler for both my program and the users to understand. However, if you really want to incorporate revision number too then that can be done.
The real big problem I have is this "SE/TE" nonsense. I can't get that from an integer unless it is a predefined list of version names - which means you can't add extra ones at a later date.
If revision is an always-growing number and doesn't reset with each new version then why can't you just scrap revision? - that is what Build is for! Do you really need to know exactly how many times you have compiled the exe?

Also I think about UseRockPatch=[bool] tag and RockPatchVersion=[??] tag (in RULESMD.INI).

That's a good idea and will help, however Launch Base will already help one step further by not loading the game in the first place - it will tell the user that RP is not installed, or not correct version before launching the mod. The above safeguard will, of course, help in non-LB situations.

[Bobingabout]

imo, the release versions should be 1.08, 1.08b, 1.08c, etc, 1.09, 1.09b
the unofficial/internal compilations can have the revision numbers.

basicly, look at these revision versions as betas.

[Marshall]

That would work easily. If the revisions were not official releases then they wouldn't need a different build number because it would be understood that they were a work in progress. If this were the case, revisions would not be downloadable via the LB auto-update.

[Bobingabout]

yes, now you've just got to convince cncvk to revert to b, c, d instead of SE, TE, FE etc.

[VK]

you have compiled the exe?

I not compile it, I edit

The real big problem I have is this "SE/TE" nonsense. I can't get that from an integer unless it is a predefined list of version names - which means you can't add extra ones at a later date.

What's problem?

Code:

char* pEditionNames[] = {"", "SE", "TE", "FE"};
...%s", pEditionNames[i]...

LB will translate the Build into the string Version and display it to the user

We can store directly version in string.
like:
FullName=Rock Patch 1.08 SE
Version=1.08 SE
I really prefer it, because... I will talk later
and we can encrypt it

doesn't reset with each new version

No. I create a new folder