2017-03-03 9:45 GMT-03:00 <rolfm@dds.nl>:
please keep the clarity of 0.0-extended version name.
 
Hi, I got your message separate from the others and missed it for a while, in another thread, I'm responding here so it's in the same thread for me...

Can you explain what you think is "clear" about the '0.0-extended' version name? I had some considerations as to how it's actually unclear (which I won't repeat yet again), so I wonder how does it work for you and how maybe we can find a solution that makes everyone happy.

I actually had proposed something else in another thread, I said it could still have the "extended" flag appended to the version. Would that work for you? I can actually see how a flag that explicitly tells you it's from extended might be desired for some people - I could go even further and suggest something like "pd-extended-0.43.4" as the appendment.

 but IOhannes did question that idea, let me quote:

2017-03-02 16:14 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig@iem.at>:
On 03/02/2017 06:37 PM, 
what's the point of adding "pd-extended" when you have a proper version
anyhow?

I said I was fine either way, and that I was just trying to meet in the middle with people that might want an explicit pd-extended label on the library

cheers