▲

[dagoon]

Hi

I have small suggestion - can XMPlay be versioned with every change Ian do? I guess we have at least 3 different 2.6 versions (latest created today). I'd prefer if they were explicitly named 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 etc. (that would require more verbose history/changes tracking I guess. WIth that everybody could be sure that he doesn't miss any latest patch.

What about that, Ian?

regards

[Zarggg]

To be perfectly honest, those changes are small and don't affect the majority of users.  Technically, these would not be separate versions but builds.

Therefore, I see no problems with just simply calling it "2.6", and letting those people whom the changes affect know when an updated build has been released.

[dagoon]

Technically, these would not be separate versions but builds.

Right, so maybe we can have two things:
 - version AND build number displayed somewhere in XMPlay
 - current version AND latest build number displayed on the Website

what about this?

[Ralesk]

Absolutely.  I must say, I don't really like /not/ to know what exe is which --- and after some while, the release is quite damn outdated compared to a beta build.

Whatever...  quite some updates are worth a subminor version number change, as seen in 2.4a.  As for History, I find it enough to note it like this:

Changes since last main release:

lalalala

Changes in 2.6:

lalala

Changes in 2.5

foo bar xyzyxz

and so on.  Not?

[Ian @ un4seen]

It's basically what Alpha said.

If there are things that need fixing/tweaking straight after release, then I'll sneak an update into the ZIP, and post here that it's been updated ... after that, things generally wait for an "a" release (for mainly fixes and/or minor changes), or the next full version (for new features).