[PD] cyclone 0.2beta1 wasn't showing up in deken for macOS + issues with other old versions

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 6/9/21 3:12 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> Em qua., 2 de jun. de 2021 às 17:13, IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>
> escreveu:
> 
> yeah, that's what I meant, sorry, so my question was if we could rename
> the "v0.0extended" version of cyclone as "v0.1alpha56.extended".

i don't see a reason.

> 
> Cause I would then include "v0.1alpha55.extended" as well.

why can't you upload a "v0.1alpha55" (without the ".extended" suffix)?

it might come from the "extended" period, but it also comes from the 
"george w bush" period (we probably don't want that in the version) and 
from the "year of the microcredit" (as we all remember, except for the 
very young'uns)

> 
> Well... I believe 'v0.1alpha55' better represents the 'extended'
> period/version and I would like to include that too and would also like to
> prevent confusion.

i don't understand the confusion of which you are afraid (so i guess you 
are right with your fears: the first one is already confused).

if you upload v0.1alpha55 and v0.1alpha56, it will be sorted right after 
v0.1alpha57 (that you already uploaded) and before v0.0.extended 
(uploaded by chr15m half-a-decade ago).
i think this is expected and how it should be.

(if you uploaded a "v0.4.1.extended" it would sort right between v0.4 
and v0.5-0 and it wouldn't give a jota about where the other versions 
that have an "extended" somewhere in its name go to.)

so when resurrecting a Pd-extended patch, you probably need to precisely 
instruct the users what they need to install anyhow. and telling them to 
install "v0.1alpha55" doesn't sound very copmlicated (at least no more 
complicated than: "check for any version labeled "extended" but don't 
pck v0.1alpha56 because it is seriously broken).

if you worry about other people resurrecting pd-extended patches who 
happen to have no clue about which version they should pick but would be 
helped very much if "extended" was in the version string....then it 
either won't matter (because their specific patch doesn't use any of the 
broken functionality), or they will do a quick web searh and find the 
mailinglist archives were similar problems had been discussed before¹


vgfmdsftg
IOhannes


¹ ah. now that i mention it. i do not remember anybody *ever* 
complaining about this problem since we started deken. either the 
problem does not exist in reality, or it is being discussed at length on 
the facebook group of which i'm blissfully unaware.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 840 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20210609/3f4255e6/attachment.sig>