Mame32 0.99 and Mame 0.99 Source is out

Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

0.99
----

Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
that
depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
better fix
it before then!


Source Changes
--------------
Fixed 1-bit errors in decryption keys for Crackdown and one of the
D.D. Crew
sets. [Nicola Salmoria, Chris Hardy]

Hooked up NVRAM for World Class Bowling 1.40. [Brian Troha]

Backed out some of the Arm core changes which broke several games.

Fixed the f1superb sound rom loading in ms32.c so that it doesn't
crash.
[David Haywood]

Fixed a graphics glitch in Osman. [David Haywood]

Updated the Taito Z driver: [Nicola Salmoria]
- fixed road/sprite priority (cars no longer disappear when they go
over a
hill in Continental Circus)
- removed bogus contcirc ROM containing 1989 copyright year
- added PROMs
- other minor changes

dare2001
42 answers Last reply
More about mame32 mame source
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    dare2001 wrote:
    > 0.99
    > ----
    >
    > Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
    > that
    > depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
    > better fix
    > it before then!
    -----8<-----

    Isn't it a little unfair to only give them, what, three days notice? <EG>

    --
    Thnik about it!
    Deadly_Dad

    protococcal@xylosidex.com
    Pilar@Aechmophorusy.mil
    undenominationalism@longingy.bz
    wheelwork@inequableh.mh
    anticlassical@cadencyh.net
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Dead_Dad wrote:
    > dare2001 wrote:
    >
    >> 0.99
    >> ----
    >>
    >> Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
    >> that
    >> depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
    >> better fix
    >> it before then!
    >
    > -----8<-----
    >
    > Isn't it a little unfair to only give them, what, three days notice? <EG>
    >

    Actually, given how often updates are put out, shouldn't the next
    version be v0.0100? That way we won't have the same problem when we get
    to v0.999. <GBEG>

    --
    Thnik about it!
    Deadly_Dad

    Erastianism@wasplikeu.net
    diphenylamine@masterworkn.sk
    irreclaimably@scarnp.net
    footingly@dogfishw.to
    pinnotherian@supermoistenc.edu
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    So... is this the Mame equivalent of the year 2000 bug?
    i.e.:
    Everyone knew it was coming but still coded for 2 digits.
    All retrospective coding is completed on the last day.
    All kinds of havoc is predicted, but nothing much happens.
    ....but most of all...it'll be an excuse for a big celebration,
    let's hope the mame dev's have saved up something good and big for the
    ..100 release.

    Troy.


    On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 18:11:04 GMT, Dead_Dad
    <XXXspamtrap007@gmail.comXXX> wrote:

    >dare2001 wrote:
    >> 0.99
    >> ----
    >>
    >> Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
    >> that
    >> depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
    >> better fix
    >> it before then!
    >-----8<-----
    >
    >Isn't it a little unfair to only give them, what, three days notice? <EG>
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Dead_Dad's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
    were:
    > Actually, given how often updates are put out, shouldn't the next
    > version be v0.0100? That way we won't have the same problem when we get
    > to v0.999. <GBEG>

    Most likely, would be 0.100. Your method only delays the problem
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Troy wrote:
    > So... is this the Mame equivalent of the year 2000 bug?
    > i.e.:
    > Everyone knew it was coming but still coded for 2 digits.
    > All retrospective coding is completed on the last day.
    > All kinds of havoc is predicted, but nothing much happens.
    > ....but most of all...it'll be an excuse for a big celebration,
    > let's hope the mame dev's have saved up something good and big for the
    > .100 release.
    >

    Like pong? <g>

    --
    Super Mike
    "Mi asno querría un enano y un yate, por favor."
    [My donkey would like a midget and a yacht, please.]
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
    and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
    0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
    calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
    assigned to a much older version of MAME.


    dare2001 wrote:
    > 0.99
    > ----
    >
    > Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
    > that
    > depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
    > better fix
    > it before then!
    >
    >
    > Source Changes
    > --------------
    > Fixed 1-bit errors in decryption keys for Crackdown and one of the
    > D.D. Crew
    > sets. [Nicola Salmoria, Chris Hardy]
    >
    > Hooked up NVRAM for World Class Bowling 1.40. [Brian Troha]
    >
    > Backed out some of the Arm core changes which broke several games.
    >
    > Fixed the f1superb sound rom loading in ms32.c so that it doesn't
    > crash.
    > [David Haywood]
    >
    > Fixed a graphics glitch in Osman. [David Haywood]
    >
    > Updated the Taito Z driver: [Nicola Salmoria]
    > - fixed road/sprite priority (cars no longer disappear when they go
    > over a
    > hill in Continental Circus)
    > - removed bogus contcirc ROM containing 1989 copyright year
    > - added PROMs
    > - other minor changes
    >
    > dare2001
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote in news:6ZaJe.305$911.54
    @newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

    > I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
    > and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
    > 0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
    > calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
    > assigned to a much older version of MAME.

    Which would be correct - IF version numbers were based on decimal.
    --
    Do you want a free iPod?
    http://www.freeipods.com/?r=15154431
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Anti_Freak_Machine wrote:
    > Troy wrote:
    >
    >> So... is this the Mame equivalent of the year 2000 bug?
    >> i.e.:
    >> Everyone knew it was coming but still coded for 2 digits.
    >> All retrospective coding is completed on the last day.
    >> All kinds of havoc is predicted, but nothing much happens.
    >> ....but most of all...it'll be an excuse for a big celebration,
    >> let's hope the mame dev's have saved up something good and big for the
    >> .100 release.
    >>
    >
    > Like pong? <g>
    >

    Like a working Buggy Boy! Woo Hoo!!
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Jeff-B wrote:
    > dare2001 wrote:
    >
    >> 0.99
    >> ----
    >>
    >> Note that the next version of MAME will be 0.100. If you have code
    >> that
    >> depends on there being only two digits after the decimal, you had
    >> better fix
    >> it before then!
    >>
    >>
    >> Source Changes
    >> --------------
    >> Fixed 1-bit errors in decryption keys for Crackdown and one of the
    >> D.D. Crew
    >> sets. [Nicola Salmoria, Chris Hardy]
    >>
    >> Hooked up NVRAM for World Class Bowling 1.40. [Brian Troha]
    >>
    >> Backed out some of the Arm core changes which broke several games.
    >>
    >> Fixed the f1superb sound rom loading in ms32.c so that it doesn't
    >> crash.
    >> [David Haywood]
    >>
    >> Fixed a graphics glitch in Osman. [David Haywood]
    >>
    >> Updated the Taito Z driver: [Nicola Salmoria]
    >> - fixed road/sprite priority (cars no longer disappear when they go
    >> over a hill in Continental Circus)
    >> - removed bogus contcirc ROM containing 1989 copyright year
    >> - added PROMs
    >> - other minor changes
    >>
    >> dare2001
    > I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version
    > 0.100 and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learnt in math class that
    > 0.10 = 0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that,
    > but calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already
    > been assigned to a much older version of MAME.
    >

    Personally, I agree. Most software devs hold off on releasing v1.xx
    until the project is out of beta phase. MAME is unique in that, because
    it uses separate drivers (essentially programs) for each game or family
    of games, it is both effectively beta *and* final, depending on the
    status of each driver. I think that going back to v0.100 is a step in
    the wrong direction, as there already /was/ a v0.1, and that will
    confuse the /hell/ out of people just joining the scene, as well as
    /totally/ screwing up any version sorting.

    So go ahead and call the next release v1.00, MAMEDev! /We/ know what
    you mean.

    --
    Thnik about it!
    Deadly_Dad

    protonegroid@yevenl.uy
    fakement@eructationq.gov
    Potawatomi@Penaeaceae.unmalignedu.com
    jaob@undrinkablen.edu
    bungarum@phyllostomine.fledgeo.gf
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:29:47 GMT, Dead_Dad
    <XXXspamtrap007@gmail.comXXX> wrote:

    >Personally, I agree. Most software devs hold off on releasing v1.xx
    >until the project is out of beta phase. MAME is unique in that, because
    >it uses separate drivers (essentially programs) for each game or family
    >of games, it is both effectively beta *and* final, depending on the
    >status of each driver. I think that going back to v0.100 is a step in
    >the wrong direction, as there already /was/ a v0.1, and that will
    >confuse the /hell/ out of people just joining the scene, as well as
    >/totally/ screwing up any version sorting.
    >
    >So go ahead and call the next release v1.00, MAMEDev! /We/ know what
    >you mean.


    Since it's always easier to look back and think of other ways to do
    things... (or at least have fun with it...)

    - We could start referring to the previous releases as version
    0.0xx... By adding that extra zero, that would make the current
    release 0.099.

    - We could follow the logic the DMV uses with license plates. We're
    outta numbers so we use letters... Starting with the next release we
    go to version 0.A00, 0.A01, 0.A02, etc. Just not sure where we'd go
    when we get to 0.Z99... 26 * 100 = 2600 versions

    - We could use Star Trek logic... I think it was in one of the movies
    after they destroyed the ship, someone said, "Well, there's still lots
    of letters left in the alphabet..."


    Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know... Slow weekend...

    --
    Cordata
    http://abem.mametitles.com - alt.binaries.emulators.mame FAQ
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    On 2005-08-06, Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote:
    > I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
    > and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
    > 0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
    > calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
    > assigned to a much older version of MAME.

    If you had stayed in school a year or two more you would have learned
    the difference between a decimal point and a separator.

    OG.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Olivier Galibert wrote:
    > On 2005-08-06, Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
    >>and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
    >>0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
    >>calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
    >>assigned to a much older version of MAME.
    >
    >
    > If you had stayed in school a year or two more you would have learned
    > the difference between a decimal point and a separator.
    >
    > OG.

    Let's see..... A decimal point has an ASCII value of 46. Hmmmmm..... I
    can't seem to find the value for a 'separator'. Perhaps it's in one of
    the extended ASCII tables? <EG>

    --
    Thnik about it!
    Deadly_Dad

    helminthology@multituberculyf.com
    lateral@vriddhig.net
    Chamaenerion@repartakes.org
    cannibality@orchioneuralgia.convergementp.edu
    snakelike@productedv.edu
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Dead_Dad wrote:
    > I think that going back to
    > v0.100 is a step in the wrong direction, as there already /was/ a
    > v0.1, and that will confuse the /hell/ out of people just joining the
    > scene, as well as /totally/ screwing up any version sorting.

    The period in version numbers is NOT a decimal point, it is purely a
    separator. This is the case in all version numbering schemes that I have
    ever been aware of.

    Therefore 0.1 is "version 0, release 1" and 0.100 is "version 0, release
    100". The two are absolutely not the same.

    All version sorting should understand this, or it's been implemented
    incorrectly.

    I've spent months arguing this point with people I work with, who are also
    of the opinion that after "1.9" comes "2.0" instead of "1.10", so it's
    familiar ground. :-) It was argued that the users would find it confusing
    moving from 1.9 to 1.10, but strangely if you open a MS Word document that
    has section numbering switched on, it'll happily go from section 1.9 to 1.10
    and no one finds that confusing at all...

    --

    (O)enone
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    "Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
    news:slrndfcdp8.dus.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
    > On 2005-08-06, Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote:
    > > I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
    > > and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
    > > 0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
    > > calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
    > > assigned to a much older version of MAME.
    >
    > If you had stayed in school a year or two more you would have learned
    > the difference between a decimal point and a separator.

    It's not so easy.
    Sometimes it's a decimal point, sometimes it is a separator; in most of the
    cases it doesn't matter.
    There are some software that release e.g. 1.03 before 1.1, other would do
    the opposite.

    AS
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Amedeo Storni's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
    body were:
    > "Olivier Galibert" <galibert@pobox.com> wrote in message
    > news:slrndfcdp8.dus.galibert@m23.limsi.fr...
    >> On 2005-08-06, Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote:
    >> > I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
    >> > and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
    >> > 0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
    >> > calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
    >> > assigned to a much older version of MAME.
    >> If you had stayed in school a year or two more you would have learned
    >> the difference between a decimal point and a separator.
    > It's not so easy.
    > Sometimes it's a decimal point, sometimes it is a separator; in most of the
    > cases it doesn't matter.
    > There are some software that release e.g. 1.03 before 1.1, other would do
    > the opposite.

    Morons do it that way. Proper way though is to use it as a separator.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Hi,

    > Morons do it that way. Proper way though is to use it as a separator.

    Who gets to say what the proper way is? Is this documented somewhere?

    It seems much more common to me to see software packages designed with it as
    a decimal point. Many times you will see a company go from 9.0 to 9.5 to
    10.0 for example.

    Honestly I think going from 0.99 to 0.100 is moronic.

    While we are on a versioning rant, I think 10,000 releases before version
    1.00 is also stupidity. For some reason people decided to think of 1.00 as
    a "complete finished product that will never be improved upon" instead of
    "this is what we began with".

    In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
    eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
    8, 2005 release.

    My two cents!

    SA Dev
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    SA Development's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
    body were:
    > In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
    > eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
    > 8, 2005 release.

    That'd be too confusing for most people, especially with the developer
    releases mixed in.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    SA Development wrote:
    -----8<-----
    > In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
    > eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
    > 8, 2005 release.
    >
    > My two cents!
    >
    > SA Dev

    Good Idea! 'MAME v050806' ROMs, extras, etc. for that version can be
    easily set to that date, which makes it /dead/ easy to see if your (or
    anyone else's) files are up-to-date. (Hint, hint, Roman! <G>)

    --
    Thnik about it!
    Deadly_Dad

    heptanone@ovoflavine.net
    fimbriatum@psychotherapeuticsl.net
    hydrophily@rushingly.baymanq.org
    vigilate@henceforwardsr.mil
    beadlet@terminablyh.net
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Hellmark thought about it a bit, then said...
    > SA Development's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
    > body were:
    > > In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
    > > eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
    > > 8, 2005 release.
    >
    > That'd be too confusing for most people, especially with the developer
    > releases mixed in.

    How do you figure that? A new .1 isn't more confusing than the August
    5th Release?

    Frankly, MAME should have been at 1.0 status ages ago, and all of this
    ..100 nonsense is, frankly, stupid. Less than a 1.0 release is usually
    considered alpha or beta software, and MAME is way beyond that.

    In software development, the generally accepted numbering standard is:

    1 . 0 0
    | | |
    | | Bug Fixes Only
    | Minor New Features and Bug Fixes
    Major Version

    It's time for a 1.0 release.

    --
    Kevin Steele
    RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
    www.retroblast.com
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Hi Kevin,

    > Frankly, MAME should have been at 1.0 status ages ago, and all of this
    > .100 nonsense is, frankly, stupid. Less than a 1.0 release is usually
    > considered alpha or beta software, and MAME is way beyond that.
    > In software development, the generally accepted numbering standard is:
    > It's time for a 1.0 release.

    I agree 100% (or is that .100% ha ha ha). MAME should be well past 1.0 for
    where it is today...

    Did you get a chance to look at my tweaks document I sent? I probably have
    some more updating on it before it could be ready for your site. Have you
    heard from Max lately?

    Thanks,

    SA Dev
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    SA Development thought about it a bit, then said...
    > Hi Kevin,
    >
    > > Frankly, MAME should have been at 1.0 status ages ago, and all of this
    > > .100 nonsense is, frankly, stupid. Less than a 1.0 release is usually
    > > considered alpha or beta software, and MAME is way beyond that.
    > > In software development, the generally accepted numbering standard is:
    > > It's time for a 1.0 release.
    >
    > I agree 100% (or is that .100% ha ha ha). MAME should be well past 1.0 for
    > where it is today...
    >
    > Did you get a chance to look at my tweaks document I sent? I probably have
    > some more updating on it before it could be ready for your site. Have you
    > heard from Max lately?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > SA Dev

    I have to admit I haven't looked too closely at the tweaks document yet
    - I confess I was waiting for the "final version" (and I'm swamped with
    a huge backlog now that I've been more or less off-line for nearly a
    month!)

    And no, I haven't heard from Max. Drop him a line and see if he's ready
    for publication yet.

    --
    Kevin Steele
    RetroBlast! Retrogaming News and Reviews
    www.retroblast.com
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Great, we've sorted that one out, let's move to a date based format.
    Now then, will it be dd/mm/yy (UK) or mm/dd/yy (US), or perhaps yymmdd
    or even yyddmm? Should we include the full 4 digit year, or only 2?
    Do we back convert the previous releases or start afresh and have
    old+new numbering schemes: how will the version tab work in Mame32?

    Perhaps the existing mame numbering scheme isn't so bad after all!

    Troy.


    On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 13:17:24 -0500, "SA Development"
    <nospam38925@forme.com> wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >> Morons do it that way. Proper way though is to use it as a separator.
    >
    >Who gets to say what the proper way is? Is this documented somewhere?
    >
    >It seems much more common to me to see software packages designed with it as
    >a decimal point. Many times you will see a company go from 9.0 to 9.5 to
    >10.0 for example.
    >
    >Honestly I think going from 0.99 to 0.100 is moronic.
    >
    >While we are on a versioning rant, I think 10,000 releases before version
    >1.00 is also stupidity. For some reason people decided to think of 1.00 as
    >a "complete finished product that will never be improved upon" instead of
    >"this is what we began with".
    >
    >In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
    >eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
    >8, 2005 release.
    >
    >My two cents!
    >
    >SA Dev
    >
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Hi Kevin,

    > I have to admit I haven't looked too closely at the tweaks document yet
    > - I confess I was waiting for the "final version" (and I'm swamped with
    > a huge backlog now that I've been more or less off-line for nearly a
    > month!)

    No sweat. I've tried emailing Max, but haven't heard from him. I'll send
    you the final version as soon as I get it updated.

    Thanks!

    SA Dev
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Kevin Steele wrote:
    > Hellmark thought about it a bit, then said...
    >
    >>SA Development's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
    >>body were:
    >>
    >>>In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
    >>>eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
    >>>8, 2005 release.
    >>
    >>That'd be too confusing for most people, especially with the developer
    >>releases mixed in.
    >
    >
    > How do you figure that? A new .1 isn't more confusing than the August
    > 5th Release?
    >
    > Frankly, MAME should have been at 1.0 status ages ago, and all of this
    > .100 nonsense is, frankly, stupid. Less than a 1.0 release is usually
    > considered alpha or beta software, and MAME is way beyond that.
    >
    > In software development, the generally accepted numbering standard is:
    >
    > 1 . 0 0
    > | | |
    > | | Bug Fixes Only
    > | Minor New Features and Bug Fixes
    > Major Version
    >
    > It's time for a 1.0 release.
    >

    I agree, it's not like we cannot have 2.0 3.0 etc in the future anyway.
    In addition I dont think the status of drivers should affect the
    maturity of the main code. MAME should be on version 2.0 anyway
    (version 1.0 should have been the DOS version).

    --
    MCR
    MAME(tm) - History In The Making
    Live! Gamertag MCROnline
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    On 2005-08-09, MCR <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com> wrote:
    > In addition I dont think the status of drivers should affect the
    > maturity of the main code.

    The main code, you mean the part Aaron rewrites every other week[1],
    sometimes with major API changes[2], and which is going to change once
    again soon? I think a 0.x version number reflects perfectly well its
    maturity.

    OG.

    [1] Essentially for the best mind you
    [2] I think sound interfaces was the latest? Not sure...
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Deadly_Dad wrote:
    > SA Development wrote:
    > -----8<-----
    >
    >> In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
    >> eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the
    >> Aug
    >> 8, 2005 release.
    >>
    >> My two cents!
    >>
    >> SA Dev
    >
    >
    > Good Idea! 'MAME v050806' ROMs, extras, etc. for that version can be
    > easily set to that date, which makes it /dead/ easy to see if your (or
    > anyone else's) files are up-to-date. (Hint, hint, Roman! <G>)
    >

    Now I do like that idea for version numbers
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Olivier Galibert wrote:
    > On 2005-08-09, MCR <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com> wrote:
    >
    >> In addition I dont think the status of drivers should affect the
    >>maturity of the main code.
    >
    >
    > The main code, you mean the part Aaron rewrites every other week[1],
    > sometimes with major API changes[2], and which is going to change once
    > again soon? I think a 0.x version number reflects perfectly well its
    > maturity.
    >
    > OG.
    >
    > [1] Essentially for the best mind you
    > [2] I think sound interfaces was the latest? Not sure...

    On this I will conceed you know best. However I think we can both agree
    that version numbering isnt as big an issue as people are making it!

    --
    MCR
    MAME(tm) - History In The Making
    Live! Gamertag MCROnline
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Kevin Steele's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
    body were:
    > Hellmark thought about it a bit, then said...
    >> SA Development's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
    >> body were:
    >> > In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
    >> > eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the Aug
    >> > 8, 2005 release.
    >> That'd be too confusing for most people, especially with the developer
    >> releases mixed in.
    > How do you figure that? A new .1 isn't more confusing than the August
    > 5th Release?

    What if there is multiple releases in a day? Sometimes you'll make a
    release, and then notice a bug shortly after release.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Hi,

    > What if there is multiple releases in a day? Sometimes you'll make a
    > release, and then notice a bug shortly after release.

    I guess you could include the hhmmss as well, but that would be a giant
    pain... Seriously, while I think date versioning would be better for MAME
    given the way it is developed and continually updated, I think going to 1.00
    should have been done a long time ago. Going from 0.99 to 0.100 is about
    the worst idea of any I think...

    Good Luck,

    SA Dev
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    SuperMappy wrote:
    > Deadly_Dad wrote:
    >
    >> SA Development wrote:
    >> -----8<-----
    >>
    >>> In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they
    >>> should
    >>> eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as
    >>> the Aug
    >>> 8, 2005 release.
    >>>
    >>> My two cents!
    >>>
    >>> SA Dev
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Good Idea! 'MAME v050806' ROMs, extras, etc. for that version can be
    >> easily set to that date, which makes it /dead/ easy to see if your (or
    >> anyone else's) files are up-to-date. (Hint, hint, Roman! <G>)
    >>
    >
    > Now I do like that idea for version numbers

    Thank you.

    --
    Thnik about it!
    Deadly_Dad

    turkeyfoot@Babiismt.mil
    hind@spermatoblastici.org
    serofluid@semilatentp.mil
    homeomorphic@questioninglyv.org
    misincite@infracentralo.org
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Deadly_Dad wrote:
    > SA Development wrote:
    > -----8<-----
    >
    >> In the case of MAME, a work that is constantly being updated, they should
    >> eliminate the numeric versioning and go with a simple date such as the
    >> Aug
    >> 8, 2005 release.
    >>
    >> My two cents!
    >>
    >> SA Dev
    >
    >
    > Good Idea! 'MAME v050806' ROMs, extras, etc. for that version can be
    > easily set to that date, which makes it /dead/ easy to see if your (or
    > anyone else's) files are up-to-date. (Hint, hint, Roman! <G>)
    >

    ......make that 'v050806.00' - the '.00' maps to the hour of the file, so
    unless there are more than 24 releases in one day, we are /still/ set.

    The nice thing about this system is that the compiler /itself/ can be
    directed to automatically set the version number.

    --
    Thnik about it!
    Deadly_Dad

    paranoiac@ceilingwardso.bi
    grame@philocynyt.int
    unusably@pappiformu.net
    superexcitement@Dipsacusn.edu
    plasmolyzability@debtor.unrestablei.sj
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Deadly_Dad's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his
    body were:
    > Deadly_Dad wrote:
    >> Good Idea! 'MAME v050806' ROMs, extras, etc. for that version can be
    >> easily set to that date, which makes it /dead/ easy to see if your (or
    >> anyone else's) files are up-to-date. (Hint, hint, Roman! <G>)
    > .....make that 'v050806.00' - the '.00' maps to the hour of the file, so
    > unless there are more than 24 releases in one day, we are /still/ set.
    > The nice thing about this system is that the compiler /itself/ can be
    > directed to automatically set the version number.

    And you still call that better?
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Hi,

    >> .....make that 'v050806.00' - the '.00' maps to the hour of the file, so
    > And you still call that better?

    Pretty much *anything* would beat 0.99 --> 0.100. I'd even take this is the
    "newer version", or the "newer newer version" over 0.100.

    Thanks,

    SA Dev
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    On 2005-08-09, MCR <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com> wrote:
    > However I think we can both agree
    > that version numbering isnt as big an issue as people are making it!

    Ohhh yeah. I completely agree with you on that.

    OG.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:55:30 GMT, Olivier Galibert
    <galibert@pobox.com> wrote:

    >On 2005-08-09, MCR <mark.coleman10@ntlworld.com> wrote:
    >> However I think we can both agree
    >> that version numbering isnt as big an issue as people are making it!
    >
    >Ohhh yeah. I completely agree with you on that.
    >
    > OG.

    So far this thread has shown us a few things...

    1. No matter how many people participate in a converstaion, there will
    never be one answer that everyone agrees on.

    2. The people that have posted their opinions have had some good
    suggestions on version numbering.

    3. There are a lot of people that care about the future of MAME.
    (even if it's just the version numbering... :)


    Regardless of how the version numbering goes, this has been one of the
    more active threads recently...

    --
    Cordata
    http://abem.mametitles.com - alt.binaries.emulators.mame FAQ
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    > 1. No matter how many people participate in a converstaion, there will
    > never be one answer that everyone agrees on.

    Wrong notation! 1.0 or .10 will be better

    > 2. The people that have posted their opinions have had some good
    > suggestions on version numbering.

    Wrong notation! 2.0 or .20 or .100 will be better
    >
    > 3. There are a lot of people that care about the future of MAME.
    > (even if it's just the version numbering... :)
    >
    Wrong notation! 3.0 or .30 or .1000 will be better


    > ... this has been one of the more active threads recently...

    Wrong notation!
    Correct is:
    this has been 1.0 of the more active threads recently...

    Bye :-)
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    * SA Development Wrote in alt.games.mame:

    > Hi,
    >
    >>> .....make that 'v050806.00' - the '.00' maps to the hour of the
    >>> file, so
    >> And you still call that better?
    >
    > Pretty much *anything* would beat 0.99 --> 0.100. I'd even take
    > this is the "newer version", or the "newer newer version" over
    > 0.100.
    >

    ROTFL!


    --
    David
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Hi Sinner,

    >> Pretty much *anything* would beat 0.99 --> 0.100. I'd even take
    >> this is the "newer version", or the "newer newer version" over
    >> 0.100.
    > ROTFL!

    Glad you enjoyed it!

    SA Dev
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Tsunoo Rhilty wrote:
    >>1. No matter how many people participate in a converstaion, there will
    >>never be one answer that everyone agrees on.
    >
    >
    > Wrong notation! 1.0 or .10 will be better
    >
    >
    >>2. The people that have posted their opinions have had some good
    >>suggestions on version numbering.
    >
    >
    > Wrong notation! 2.0 or .20 or .100 will be better
    >
    >>3. There are a lot of people that care about the future of MAME.
    >>(even if it's just the version numbering... :)
    >>
    >
    > Wrong notation! 3.0 or .30 or .1000 will be better
    >
    >
    >
    >>... this has been one of the more active threads recently...
    >
    >
    > Wrong notation!
    > Correct is:
    > this has been 1.0 of the more active threads recently...
    >
    > Bye :-)
    >
    >

    lmao - Good one!

    --
    Thnik about it!
    Deadly_Dad

    Balanites@inseparateg.net
    arctic@composographu.gov
    haughtly@hopbinem.com
    geisha@perfervidityz.cr
    indistinction@excoriatek.an
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Olivier Galibert wrote:
    > On 2005-08-06, Jeff-B <mameburner@NOSPAM.monstarcade.com> wrote:
    >
    >>I understand the whole history and reasoning behind using version 0.100
    >>and 1.00, but where I grew up, we learned in math class that 0.10 =
    >>0.100. I don't care about reaching 1.00 or anything like that, but
    >>calling it 0.100 is just reusing a version number that has already been
    >>assigned to a much older version of MAME.
    >
    >
    > If you had stayed in school a year or two more you would have learned
    > the difference between a decimal point and a separator.
    >
    > OG.


    ....and if you had read my post more carefully, Olivier, you would have
    known that "I don't care".

    Some funny observations on numbering/naming schemes:

    The traditional naming conventions for batteries uses letters; the
    letter loosely correlates with the size of the battery. D's are big, C's
    are smaller, etc. Back in the days of vaccuum tube radios, "B" and "A"
    batteries were prevalent and followed suit in the naming scheme. But
    when batteries smaller than the "A" were developed, engineers were
    stumped... what to call them? How about "AA"? Sounded good until an even
    smaller battery was developed. How about "AAA"? Eventually the flaw in
    the naming scheme cause it to be scrapped altogether.

    Mailing envelope sizes in the US are a similar example. The smaller the
    number, the smaller the envelope. Some short-sighted person figured that
    "8.5 x 11" would be the smallest envelope size ever creted, so they
    called it size "1". But then then companies started producing "6 x 9"
    envelopes. Hmmmm... what to call them. How about size "0"? Then came
    even smaller "5 x 7" envelopes. Hmmm... OK, how about calling them size
    "00"?

    Decimal point. Seperator. Dot. Period. Who cares?
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    Jeff-B's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
    were:
    > The traditional naming conventions for batteries uses letters; the
    > letter loosely correlates with the size of the battery. D's are big, C's
    > are smaller, etc. Back in the days of vaccuum tube radios, "B" and "A"
    > batteries were prevalent and followed suit in the naming scheme. But
    > when batteries smaller than the "A" were developed, engineers were
    > stumped... what to call them? How about "AA"? Sounded good until an even
    > smaller battery was developed. How about "AAA"? Eventually the flaw in
    > the naming scheme cause it to be scrapped altogether.

    For the cylindrical, nonflat, style battery, that stores 1.5volts, that
    is still used. They now make AAAA batteries.

    > Decimal point. Seperator. Dot. Period. Who cares?

    Your entire rant there was about things hitting a limit when things got
    too small. You say you don't care, yet you took enough time to write all
    that dribble. My point being, there's a difference whether you choose to
    accept it or not, so anything you say to the contrary doesn't really
    matter.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.mame (More info?)

    * Hellmark wrote in alt.games.mame:
    > Jeff-B's last words before the Sword of Azrial plunged through his body
    > were:
    >> The traditional naming conventions for batteries uses letters; the
    >> letter loosely correlates with the size of the battery. D's are big, C's
    >> are smaller, etc. Back in the days of vaccuum tube radios, "B" and "A"
    >> batteries were prevalent and followed suit in the naming scheme. But
    >> when batteries smaller than the "A" were developed, engineers were
    >> stumped... what to call them? How about "AA"? Sounded good until an even
    >> smaller battery was developed. How about "AAA"? Eventually the flaw in
    >> the naming scheme cause it to be scrapped altogether.

    > For the cylindrical, nonflat, style battery, that stores 1.5volts, that
    > is still used. They now make AAAA batteries.

    Which is utterly rediculous and inconsistent, which was his point.

    --
    David
    Lord, what fools these mortals be!
    -- William Shakespeare, "A Midsummer-Night's Dream"
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games