ID:138227
 
I just added Slurpy to the list, but I have neither an information HTML, nor a Login! address. If those fields are null, could you make it so the hub entry doesn't have it?
On 1/14/01 6:23 pm Spuzzum wrote:
I just added Slurpy to the list, but I have neither an information HTML, nor a Login! address. If those fields are null, could you make it so the hub entry doesn't have it?

Good call.
In response to Tom H.
Oh, and could the world.version (and the hub version) be optionally non-numerical? There's a lot more that can be conveyed in

0.3.271a

than can be in

0.3


And yes, purely by coincidence, that just happens to be the current release of Slurpy. And you can download it!

Slurpy Demo! v0.3.271a

Mostly, I've just fixed a couple basic things. There aren't any additional levels or anything... at least, there aren't any additional levels that you can access yet.
In response to Spuzzum
On 1/15/01 1:52 am Spuzzum wrote:
Oh, and could the world.version (and the hub version) be optionally non-numerical? There's a lot more that can be conveyed in

0.3.271a

I've tended to have complicated release numbers but am now moving towards the Dantom approach of just using a solid integer for each release...
In response to Deadron
I've tended to have complicated release numbers but am now moving towards the Dantom approach of just using a solid integer for each release...

You can always use an integer if you wanted to... the Form library works with text-strings anyway, and only converts them to numbers after the fact. I just meant that it would be nice that if you didn't want to use a strict whole number, you didn't have to.

0.3.271a

Besides, my version makes a lot more sense. It isn't version 3 (which indicates a final release... I noticed you can't even use a decimal value like 0.3 for the hub). It's version 0.3, compiled for the latest release, and it's in alpha stage right now. (People, that means I'm open to suggestions! Aren't there any? =)

I can't say version 3 when it isn't version 3. That's all I have to say about that.
In response to Deadron
On 1/15/01 2:10 am Deadron wrote:
I've tended to have complicated release numbers but am
now moving towards the Dantom approach of just using a
solid integer for each release...

I find solid numbers easier to deal with. My products are currently using this system: 12.345.678 which seems to work nice.

The last three numbers are for minor patches, middle numbers for benchmarking releases, first two numbers for major changes to the engine requiring a clean install.
In response to Gabriel
On 1/15/01 6:44 pm Gabriel wrote:
On 1/15/01 2:10 am Deadron wrote:
I've tended to have complicated release numbers but am
now moving towards the Dantom approach of just using a
solid integer for each release...

I find solid numbers easier to deal with. My products are currently using this system: 12.345.678 which seems to work nice.

That ain't a solid integer... the hub only lets you use a whole integer, and only one integer. Like version 3. Or version 12345678. Or 271. My format is

0.3.271a

which stands for

Major release | minor release/patches | compiled for [version] | alpha/beta/gamma delimiter.

All I ask is that I can use that!