Standirdized Mod Version Names

[Azivegu]

Sorry that it has taken so long to respond and my thanks to everybody for the insights!

Guessing from the general reaction for my VID style, enthousiasm is low. But as a few pointed out, there is always room for improvement.

As MAjir pointed out, there is no system for mod names. There is a little bit of a general consensus on how they do work. The system that is by far the most used is the 3-point system (1.2.3.) where the 3 is minor fixes to a previous update, 2 is a major update (new parts and abilities for example) and 1 is a total revision of the mod (say 2.2.3 is not compatable with 1.2.3). This is by far the best short system I see around.

What would be nice is if modders also used mod names for folders instead of project names or whatever. It would also be nice if included in that name was also the version number. This would help your end users to quickly double check everything. I know that 99.99% of you have the changelog, but having to repeataly open several files to get to the changelog (which often have varying format) can get annoying. I know that it sounds like I am lazy (which really is true sadly xD) but it is more of a nuisence. This would make me happy. And as Stone Blue said, Spaceport has got to get rid of the uploads_-prefix.

I would argue that putting in the version of KSP the mod was developed for is actually a good thing. It helps the user understand what has to be done with the mod to get it to work. But what frizzank said is a legitamit reason not to want to do something like that. Maybe as a solution you could put in the KSP version it was designed for and the last version it worked with. For example: FASA may have been built for 0.18 and it should work with 0.23, but for users from 0.18 to 0.23 is a big difference, while if you say [0.18-0.22] users understand that it can work with 0.23, because the gap between .22 and .23 is much smaller than .18 and .23. I am just brainstorming here.

It is usefull if modders would do this. It may be a bit more work for you (and I do acknowledge that you guys are working hard) but for the thousands of users you have it would be nice.

A .version tag for mods was proposed. This actually may be a good idea in the streamlining of automatic updaters that are currently being developed. I dont know to much about that system, but it might be worth it to look more into it.

Lastly, (I promise this message is coming to an end) as most modders do, putting the date of the last update is a good idea. The arguments made was that people dont remember if they downloaded KAS 2 or 3 weeks ago, but the purpose of the dates is not 2 to 3 weeks in the past. Mostly I check to see the date a forum page was last updated. If it was only a few days ago or less, then I usually double check. This is a behaviour that is shared by many. It is a little bit like a warning light that something may have changed and you should go double check. I dont know if you can also find yourself in that arguement, but it feels really legitamit.

Alright, I lied. There is one more thing. I would like to thank all of you (who are probably swamped with messages from everybody) for finding the time to comment here. It means a lot to me. Sadly my idea didnt go down as I had hoped, but at least you guys where open and honest about it. Thats what I love about this community, there isnt any hating. So thanks, you're the best!!!

PS: sorry for grammatical errors. I am American and a english speaker, but for the past ten years I have been living abroad, only speaking english here, and I am very tired (its exams week again )': and am very busy) so I think I may have translated a few dutch sentences into english. It happens more often than I like to admit...

Edited December 18, 2013 by Azivegu
excuse my dunglish

[Rabble]

The main reason I would not incorporate the build number of KSP in my own version number is that the two versions are not dependent on each other. Just because the KSP version increases does not mean it breaks your mod, nor do I have to update my mod to work with the latest version in most cases.

Many mods from .18 and beyond still work in .22. Also when you label your mod with a previous version of KSP it gives the impression to the general public that it doesn't work with the most recent version. When in fact it works perfectly well, and will continue to work for some time.

You're right. It doesn't mean your mod won't work or is broken but including the latest approved version is helpful in telling me if it will work for my version of KSP. Perhaps that could be just as simple as editing the subject for the forum thread (most do this anyways). My assumption if I see an old version number of KSP up is that the mod is outdated since updates frequently break mods.

Afterall, the 2 chief question I as a modder have is:

1: Will this work with my version of KSP?

2: Is this the most current version of the mod?

In regards to #2, including the release date is very helpful when I'm trying to determine if I have a recent version or if the mod is still maintained. If it isn't I might want to look toward fresher mods that are still being maintained. A really old release date is an indicator of that. Case in Point: I downloaded Mapsat recently turns out its been abandoned meanwhile Scansat is up and running and maintained. If I'd seen the old release date for Mapsat I would've known to look for other maintained mods that provide the same functionality.

[John FX]

Speaking of Spaceport, I dont like that they put a "prefix" on all the filenames. ie "uploads_2013_11_".....What good does that do an end user to know it was uploaded to Spaceport sometime in Nov. 2013?.....AND how is someone supposed to organize their mod .zips alphabetically?....So yeah, when downloading every file, I have to delete this "prefix"...

I also do not like that this is on the front of the name. It makes it very hard to see which versions of, say, KOS I have. I have to search the entire list for the particular date if sorted alphabetically.

If the date were a suffix not a prefix this would enable the info without the problems for the user.