proper versioning

[pavel-pimenov]

From toast.ro...@gmail.com on January 09, 2011 18:05:41

Would be kinda nice if flylink actually had a versioning system that actually complied with actual standards https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Software_versioning

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/flylinkdc/issues/detail?id=283

[pavel-pimenov]

From tret2...@gmail.com on January 09, 2011 13:35:42

Version of the program is standart 7.7.500.5650 (last beta), you can see it in properties of program file. We jast showing for users simplest version code, as Widows (Win95 = 4.0.0.950, Win98 4.1.0.1998)

[pavel-pimenov]

From toast.ro...@gmail.com on January 09, 2011 13:39:04

im talking about client tags

<FlylinkDC++ V:( r500 )-beta59,M:P,H:26/2/4,S:10> <FlylinkDC++ V:( r500 )-beta59-x64,M:P,H:1/0/0,S:10>

i would not call that standard its been discussed in DCDEV Public with a user that calls himself rainman that claims to be apart of the project.

so im hoping that you will consider changing your client tag version to a proper versioning system

[pavel-pimenov]

From toast.ro...@gmail.com on January 10, 2011 09:27:02

If you still wanna keep the whole revision stuff why not put that into description or something while using a proper versioning system

[pavel-pimenov]

From a.rain...@gmail.com on January 11, 2011 05:52:43

Mmm, have the option to change the tag on a <FlylinkDC++ V: r500 -beta59-x64,M:P,H:1/0/0,S:10> or such <FlylinkDC++ r500 -beta59-x64,M:P,H:1/0/0,S:10> I understand your claim to the numbering of versions, but I do not understand what sense to adhere to this numbering in the tag. The tag is still not parsed automatically, and write the tag "beta" is much more evident. Is not it? :)

[pavel-pimenov]

From a.rain...@gmail.com on January 11, 2011 05:55:29

In the end tag of the form: <FlylinkDC++ 7.7.500.5650-x64,M:P,H:1/0/0,S:10> is obviously overloaded and poorly readable.

[pavel-pimenov]

From toast.ro...@gmail.com on January 11, 2011 08:01:48

No need for x64 since the hubs itself really dont care if its a x64 version or not just the version number itself thats really the nessary and what would be wrong with

<FlylinkDC++ 7.7.5,M:P,H:1/0/0,S:10>

thats readable and clean

[pavel-pimenov]

From tret2...@gmail.com on January 16, 2011 01:26:53

What do you mean by "proper versioning system" ? The link you gave is the following:

Alphanumeric codes Examples: Macromedia Flash MX Adobe Photoshop CS2

So the format "<FlylinkDC++ V: r500 -beta59-x64,M:P,H:1/0/0,S:10> or such <FlylinkDC++ r500 -beta59-x64,M:P,H:1/0/0,S:10>" we can assume the correct.

[pavel-pimenov]

From toast.ro...@gmail.com on January 16, 2011 01:33:19

i mean that the tag your using now is really wierd and non complaint in the general matters regarding direct connect just look at it and compare it too other clients

let me ask a question

does hub or users on direct connect care if another user is running a x64 client ?

and your current tag is the following revision-status-system not really a valid versioning tag.

[pavel-pimenov]

From tret2...@gmail.com on January 16, 2011 01:58:20

What you do not like the tag? r500 or beta59-x64

[pavel-pimenov]

From toast.ro...@gmail.com on January 16, 2011 02:13:29

revision should be reserved when appending it to a version number

like 0.6.500 etc

and yes the beta-x64 is dreadful a hub doesn't care if the client is x86 or x64 as long as its functional and has implemented the protocol correctly a user cares if this x64 or x86 displaying it in tag is redundant and useless and the beta tag well if you had some sort of proper versioning system that would make sense.

[pavel-pimenov]

From a.rain...@gmail.com on January 16, 2011 02:17:43

r500 is the commercial name, it's not revision, as "Windows 7 ".

[pavel-pimenov]

From toast.ro...@gmail.com on January 16, 2011 02:43:25

erm commercial name ? enlighten me please cause in programming circles r often stands for revision so its kinda dumb to actually use that as a versioning idea

[pavel-pimenov]

From a.rain...@gmail.com on January 16, 2011 02:58:01

Historically, the version number used to match the revision number in the repository. Later, when the project moved from a local repository on google code's numbering has shifted, and the numbering sequence with the symbol "r" at the beginning and stayed.

[pavel-pimenov]

From sa.stol...@gmail.com on January 16, 2011 03:03:14

I think that users can use any program description in Favorite Hub preferences. But version system is problem of application development. Why we don't discuss coding standards here? :)

[pavel-pimenov]

From a.rain...@gmail.com on January 16, 2011 15:22:14

Removed the brackets from the tag :) ADC: <FlylinkDC++ r500 -beta60,M:P,H:114/2/4,S:10> NMDC: <FlylinkDC++ V: r500 -beta60,M:A,H:114/2/4,S:10> … and fixed a bug in the tag on ADC hubs, thank you for the report, would not have noticed the extra "V: "