2017-03-03 10:54 GMT-03:00 Fred Jan Kraan <fjkraan@xs4all.nl>:

On 03-03-17 07:42, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:

could just be "0.0.1" or something. The one thing I dont get is tof, I
couldn't find the version, but there's a new one in deken as 0.2.1,
maybe call it 0.2 then? But I wonder how that version name came up...
here's tof's git https://github.com/electrickery/pd-tof

I couldn't find a version number either,

ok, I'm not crazy then (yet), good...

and having made some bug-fixes, a new version number was needed. So I postulated the original 0.1.0 and following the Pd standard of "major.minor.bugfix" I ended up at 0.2.1 (new version and a bug-fix).

The version from pd-extended then should be 0.1.0 but 0.0.extended will do too.

I see, nice... yeah, numerous libraries in Pd extended are actually "0.1", and that seems to be what makes sense for a first release version. I did suggest "0.0.1" but that seems silly now to me, I like your reasoning better!

But then, "0-0extended" could be anything, the same, newer or older version... Now that I've done this work, I'm being able to find duplicated libraries uploaded to deken, I can see "v.0.0.extended" and then another upload with the same version as the "0.0" actually is (which I'm soon hoping to check what the difference is and fix if it's just really a duplicate).

This is why I think a better alternative to v.0.0.extended is needed, it gives you a clue where to start from if you're working on an update. And it is specially important if there is already another version uploaded there, as is the case of "tof".

cheers