Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Mame32 0.99 and Mame 0.99 Source is out

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:26:54 PM

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

More about : mame32 mame source

Anonymous
August 6, 2005 10:11:04 PM

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
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 10:13:51 PM

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
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 6, 2005 11:21:10 PM

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>
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 1:31:43 AM

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
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 1:44:20 AM

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 querrĂ­a un enano y un yate, por favor."
[My donkey would like a midget and a yacht, please.]
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 2:37:54 AM

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
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 2:55:59 AM

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
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 5:07:01 AM

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!!
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 5:29:47 PM

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
August 7, 2005 6:42:49 PM

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
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 8:30:32 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 4:29:47 AM

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
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 1:28:59 PM

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
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 9:04:24 PM

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
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 9:04:25 PM

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.
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 9:04:26 PM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 12:01:31 AM

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.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 12:09:32 AM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 12:16:28 AM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 12:16:29 AM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 1:30:44 AM

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
August 9, 2005 2:26:18 AM

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
>
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 3:34:55 AM

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
August 9, 2005 4:36:49 AM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 4:49:30 AM

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...
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 5:57:11 AM

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
August 9, 2005 5:57:39 AM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 6:09:31 AM

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.
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 6:09:32 AM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 8:30:11 AM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 8:35:05 AM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 11:01:28 AM

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?
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 11:03:22 AM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 4:55:30 PM

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.
August 9, 2005 4:55:31 PM

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
Anonymous
August 9, 2005 10:35:20 PM

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 :-)
August 10, 2005 12:19:42 AM

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
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 12:19:43 AM

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
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 1:24:21 AM

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
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 5:16:51 PM

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?
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 5:31:18 PM

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.
August 11, 2005 5:39:30 AM

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"
!