Ignore me (Testing version checking)

StDoodle

StDoodle

Minion
Tab Test v0.1
[requires revision 9999]

This is a test, this is only a test. I'm working on modifications to my / perhaps eventually zarqon's version of check_version()... that's why the thread is here. Please ignore me.No really, move along, move along. ;)

Testers, please see post XXX (will be link blah blah) for Pre-release: v0.2d.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Ah crap, mind if I delete your post? Keeping two identically-named attachments in the first post can't be done sanely...

Edit to add:

What I'm trying to do is figure a way to support both a "stable" release and a testing or "pre-release" version... supporting both in check_version() isn't that huge of a problem... keeping it clear which is which in-thread and coming up with a way to "tag" the latter for script-checking is stumping me.

Edit 2:

Apparently, even having tags in the right place doesn't prevent bolding from applying to end-of-sentence punctuation. Awesomesauce.
 
Last edited:
Heh, slyz is trying to be funny, but in truth, I think adding "&pp=1" to the check_version() url is probably a good idea. ;)
 
I've got to say, and I am guilty of this myself, I am amused by the degree to which people try and apply software engineering standards and practices to what in reality are very small scale projects with small user communities. Especially when part of the community rejects the reuse of zlLib in favor of native mafia preferences.

Given the desire to have automated checking handle both a stable and a beta release, the two things that seem feasible and not too far removed from the current state would be to a) have zLib support specific post numbers and reserve post 1 for stable and post 2 for beta or b) use different names for stable and beta and have both files in the first post.

Note that mafia's builds do something similar. The file names are different for daily builds and "releases", at least if you are using and and the standard build.
 
Actually, it's not necessary (which is good, because a lot of useful scripts already have a second post in their thread). By combining special tagging to alert to the presence of a special pre-release version in the first post, you can easily link from there to the post with the separate file for it. By doing so you also avoid the need to have different names (but you can, if you want).

I've got most of this worked out in my head, but since I'm currently 'working' from the living room I haven't done much actual coding; I hope to move back to the home office for a bit tomorrow and get on that.

Now, there are tons of different ways of handling versioning, and I'm sure there will be at least a few people who don't like my choice of what to support, but I'm not trying to cover every imaginable scenario. But it should be fairly easy to choose between notification on at least 4 different levels of script upgrades and allow for several different variations of a preferred versioning scheme. But I'd of course never suggest a change that required anyone to support or configure notification levels; it will likely default to "anything but pre-releases," which would require different posting methods, which could be ignored by any author who didn't want to participate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top