Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Glanzer

Error removing orphaned shortcuts, and "alpha" problem

Question

I just upgraded to version 1.1.2 from 1.0.9 and the upgrade went smoothly.  Thank you!  But I was hoping the following 2 problems would get fixed and they still aren't:

 

PROBLEM #1:

If you create a shortcut on the toolbar for an application, then you remove the executable from your list (using the "Configure the executables..." button), you can no longer remove the shortcut.  If you right-click the shortcut and choose "remove" you get this error:

 

"an error occured: invalid name"

 

The only way to fix it is to add the entry back into the executable list making sure the same "Title" is used as the shortcut, then you can remove the shortcut and after that you can remove the entry from the executable list.

 

PROBLEM #2:

If the Nexus version number has an 'a' at the end of it (for example "1.2.7a") the interface interprets that as being an "alpha" version and displays it as "1.2.7alpha".  Maybe this is on purpose?  I don't think it should do that because I got scolded by a mod author when I referred to one of his versions as being "alpha", and he said he never releases alpha code.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

@1: please create a report on the issue tracker.

 

@2: then ask the mod author why he calls it an alpha if its not? 1.2.7a is by convention the id for an alpha version. If that's not what he wanted to say, then he shouldn't have said it...

To re-phrase: Yes it's on purpose; no, it's not gonna change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Arthmoor (for one) tends to append letters after version numbers for incremental updates. In fact, the only person I've seen using the "a for alpha" convention on this site is... you, Tannin. Nearly everyone else seems to use it to mark incremental updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And what is the rationale in doing this WilliamImm?

Why would you have n-1 levels of numeric versions and then suddenly switch to letters on the n-th?

How would you mark a beta in your versioning scheme? 1.2.7bbeta?

I'd advice you read up a bit on established versioning schemes, at least the wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning

 

MO supports multiple versioning schemes, including mixed-numbers-and-letters, but by default it assumes the most reasonable (in terms of flexibility and usability) convention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well that's the problem: MO assumes people know about versioning conventions, when sometimes even people with CS degrees don't know about it. ::P:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Should I assume people use unusual versioning schemes?  How do I pick which non-standardized versioning scheme people use?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I know this is an old topic but it's still a thorn in my flesh when looking at the version numbers in MO.  I would say let the mod author decide what version numbering system to use and simply display it unchanged.  Right now the display is NOT what the author intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Then go into the Nexus tab in Information and change it. Tannin cannot support every funny version numbering system people come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

You don't understand. I do change it but MO changes it back. If I type 1.2a it gets changed to 1.2alpha. If I type 1.2b it gets changed to 1.2beta. If I type 1.2.8.02 it gets shortened to 1.2.8. MO basically thinks it knows better. It is really frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

No, MO tries to put the version into a scheme it can work with like doing comparisons. And contrary to what people say, it's pretty good at it.

 

If I leave 1.2a and do an "alphabetic" compare then 1.2a is bigger, thus newer than 1.2. This is what you expect in this case.

If I interpret 1.2a as alpha and do a compare then 1.2alpha is older than 1.2.

Therefore, depending on how you interpret the "a" the version order is different and it's completely impossible to do the right thing for every mod.

 

But since interpreting "a" as "alpha" is a standard and interpreting a as "newer than without letter but older than b" is inconsequent nonsense I apply the first by default.

 

I'd like to highlight the "by default": MO does allow you to switch the version scheme applied on a per-mod basis: If your installation is at version 1.2 and the version at nexus is at 1.2a then MO will show that as a "downgrade". But you can right-click the mod, click "Change Versioning Scheme" (or somesuch) and MO will re-interpret the version string.

This way MO can correctly support 3 different versioning standards and it's the only software I know of to support more than 1. (correctly in the sense that it can make a distinction between "newer" and "older" instead of just "different")

 

Regarding 1.2.8.02 -> 1.2.8: I'd have to check, but I think MO should still store the full version (1.2.8.02) and use that for comparisons, it's possible I shorten the version only for display.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.