RFC: Consistent Addon Naming & Versioning

Discuss & post Update Pack addons here.
Post Reply
User avatar
kelaniz
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:37 pm
Location: Land of Broken Dreams

RFC: Consistent Addon Naming & Versioning

Post by kelaniz » Mon May 07, 2007 10:32 pm

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere, so I'll ask...

Has there been any discussion on having addon creators name and version addons in a standardized way? If not, does anyone agree it would be incredibly helpful? I ask this because, since there's so much addon talent here, I'm now using 110 addons from this forum alone! Plus, I've downloaded nearly twice that many for examination and educational purposes :)

The only problem I've experienced with addons isn't a bug or conflict, it's finding an addon in the pile! When I first used addons from here, I absentmindedly renamed them to make sorting easier. I completely forgot that changed the MD5 hash, which pretty much ruins using it when checking for updates. :)

Since these packs are posted in forums instead of in a DB-driven, formatted web page, it would be really helpful to all of us if there was a standard format for naming all new addons. Existing addons could easily be renamed to fit the format the next time they're updated.

I'm aware authors are already responsible for plenty of housekeeping, what with the change logs, descriptions and MD5 hashes. I'd never suggest anything that'd create even more work. But it seems simply applying a format to a filename you have to type anyway doesn't really do that.

My suggestion for the format (Just a suggestion. 100% open to critique) is a compromise between the two most common naming methods I've seen in the 200+ addons I've grabbed from this site.

The format looks like this:

Addons: UserName_ProgramName_ProgramVersion_Addon_AddonVersion.Ext

Example: KZ_Notepad2_2.0.15_Addon_v1.3.cab

UpdatePacks: UserName_PackName_PackVersion_PackRevision.Ext

Example: RVM_UpdatePack_2.1.9_r2.7z

This format has four pretty cool benefits.

1. It makes it possible to sort addons by author.

2. It allows consistent, easier scanning through program titles.

3. Having Addon/UpdatePack in a consistent place makes it easier to notice the occasional pack that doesn't. :) That stops packs being skipped by the integrator due to the user overlooking it.

4. The addon version/revision provides a quick backup version check should a user tweak/rename a pack, and finds the hash no longer matches what's on the site. This also makes update checks easier for users who don't have/use a hash-reading tool.

Note that addons have versions, while update packs have revisions. This is because addons are repeatedly (and frequently) updated, so an incrementing version makes sense. The last field can be compared to the filename on the forum. If the filename, date or hash changes due to user tweakage, that user can still verify they have the latest version, assuming the author updated it. :)

Now, since updatepack updates are usually released as entirely new packs, and since the pack's version is in Packversion, PackRevision simply indicates a re-release or bugfix for the pack. (Rare, since I know Ryan tries like hell to release solid packs :) )

Sure, there's plenty of ways to format a filename, but IMO, this is a concise and logical way. Some might prefer the program name and version before the Username, and that's definitely worth considering.

The actual order doesn't really matter to me. The main thing I'd like to see is the consistency.

If the forum thinks the idea is worth considering, that is.

I know this site appreciates the importance of consistency, because of the MD5/changelog requirements for posting addons. This is just another useful quality control that'd make the addons and the forum more usable. I think it's only conspicuous in its absence, and I'd love to see some form of it implemented, no matter what the format ultimately ends up being.

Thanks for reading my spontaneous mini-novel.

Comments? Questions? Flaming Bricks? :)

Kel
-KZ

Professional writer/musician/lunatic on closed course. Do not attempt.

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4618
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Tue May 08, 2007 12:06 am

Believe it or not it's been discussed before. The most recent instance, unfortunately, doesn't get too far. But even before then it was generally considered good practice to name addons as you've described if only so everyone would know who to blame when something went wrong. ;)

On paper, having two versionings in the name sounds like a good idea. In practice, however, it gets confusing and more than a little redundant. I'll give you two reasons why:
  1. When an application is updated then both versions end up being incremented when the addon is rebuilt.
  2. If an addon needs to be fixed more than once per application update then I'd say that the addon needs better testing before release. ;) (That's a pet peeve of mine and I'm as guilty as nearly anyone else here.)
The Update Pack versioning is about as good as it gets. Here's the logic:
    • RVM_UpdatePack_2.1.9.7z where the versions are a.b.c.
  1. Major version number - The number of times the pack has been built from scratch.
  2. Minor version number - This is incremented when the current Update Pack cannot be integrated into a previously RVMed source.
  3. Subversion number - The number of times the pack has been updated since the last minor version increase.
If an Update Pack needs to be fixed then lowercase letters are added to the subversion to indicate this.

Given the logic above, Ryan's next Update Pack will be v2.1.10, not 2.2.0 as some have already stated. :P
Last edited by 5eraph on Tue May 08, 2007 12:31 am, edited 5 times in total.

biatche
I can't read
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:49 am

Post by biatche » Tue May 08, 2007 12:12 am

well, i partialy disagree on the layout.

I like linux file-naming best, although i don't use exactly the way they do

this is how i do it, i modified some of the addons i download here to suit my work best

I often rename them to like

Addon_Program_ProgramVersion_AddonVersionIfapplicable-Username.ext

and then there's AddonTheme_blablalbalba as above
and AddonCPL blalbalblaa as above

say, there are two versions of WMP

wmp10 by rvm
and wmp11 by boogy

it's not gonna be the easiest to spot and afterall.. it's not us who write the software..

boogy-wmp11
some others
rvm-wmp10

but itll be a lot easier if the programname is in front.

Also, as for AddonVersion... I seriously think that's unnecessary. What should be in place of AddonVersion is build date. 070508 for instance. and if there's a re-release, it should be 070508-r1, -r2 and so on. they should never be silently updated.

Alternatively, build date may be unnecessary totally. Having program version is enough. the first version will not include an extraversion. if say, the addon pack has some issues and there needs to be another release of the same version, then, it should be

-r1, -r2, -r3 and so forth...

a changelog will be very nice to have definitely, so we all know what's going on.

whatever it is, consistency would be good, and then we'll have everything really neat. everyone should stick to just one layout.

i think this should be properly read and discussed.

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4618
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Tue May 08, 2007 12:45 am

I'd be more than happy to rename my addons to conform to a more logical standard, biatche, but I believe the current order of:
  • Creator_Program_ProgramVersion_Addon
makes the most sense because addons should be in their own directory, separate from Update Packs or other files. ;)

Addon creator names come first not (just) because of the creator's hubris, but to indicate to the user who is responsible for the addon in question. I can't count how many times I've seen someone start bitching that their build doesn't work and wonder whose fault it is. The name in front makes it hard to miss. :rolleyes:

It's hard to argue with the hardened veterans that have put these conventions in place, especially since many have already come and gone.
Last edited by 5eraph on Tue May 08, 2007 1:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

biatche
I can't read
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:49 am

Post by biatche » Tue May 08, 2007 12:57 am

5eraph, OK yeah but if say you have two versions of the same program, isn't that gonna look confusing? The way they release linux kernels are usually like this

example:

linux-2.6.21.1-ck3,

linux is the program name
2.6.21.1 is the version

and ck is the name and mod of the author: Con Kolivas
3 being his version.

I may modify his version, and do it like this
linux-2.6.21.1-ck3-biatche1

and make certain changes.

This way, things are 100% organized and sorted in alphabetical order. should you make changes to the author's version, you can append your name to it. and it becomes a subflavor of his.

By having names in front, you lose order of flavors, and versions and programs and just about everything.
Plus, it's not really like Biatche's_Foxit.. im the least important, and so I should belong to the end.

You do need to include "Addon" for these packs, might as well add them to the front, and use it to categorize releases, whether they are pure software addons, or theme addons, or cpl addons, and so forth

Ive divided mine into Addon, AddonTheme, AddonCPL so I do not lose order.

Linux labeling is the best. the structure they use, document and just about everything is just really organized. I hardly ever get confused.

Just take my example of rvm wmp10 and boogy's wmp11 and put it in one directory together with 20 other files, good chance you're gonna miss it if you do not pay attention.

I know i can't be wrong in this one =)

User avatar
ricktendo64
Posts: 3213
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:27 am
Location: Honduras

Post by ricktendo64 » Tue May 08, 2007 1:04 am

I use this version ONLY when I have to update the addon but the program number remains the same
UserName_ProgramName_ProgramVersion_Addon_AddonVersion.Ext
Example: KZ_Notepad2_2.0.15_Addon_v1.3.cab
But mostly I use
UserName_ProgramName_Addon_Addon&ProgramVersion
Example: Ricks_Notepad++_AddOn_v2.1.rar

User avatar
Siginet
Site Admin
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Siginet » Tue May 08, 2007 6:57 am

I actually think we should standardize naming as well. I suggest that each addon have a version complying with the date of release... like this: Today is May 08. 2007. The version could be 7.05.08
7 = year of the millenium (2007), 05 = Month (May), 08 = Day of month (8th).

Example:
Siginet_Ad-AwareSE_1.06r1_AddOn_v7.05.08.rar

NameOfCreator_ProgramName_ProgramVersion_Addon_ReleaseDate

It would be nice if we had a standard naming scheme like this because the release date would be in the name and so would the programs version info. ;)

Edit. Fixed some typos... must have been tired lol.
Last edited by Siginet on Tue May 08, 2007 9:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

User avatar
ricktendo64
Posts: 3213
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:27 am
Location: Honduras

Post by ricktendo64 » Tue May 08, 2007 10:29 am

Thats a pretty good Idea Siginet... But Ill only switch when everybody else does :P

User avatar
kelaniz
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:37 pm
Location: Land of Broken Dreams

Post by kelaniz » Tue May 08, 2007 5:04 pm

Post Validation. Sweet!

5eraph: Nice job finding that obscure discussion from 2006. 5 searches for an exact-match term and I found nothing. It's funny, I ran phpbb on a 75,000 user forum for over 4 years, and even after practically rewriting it to customize it for my board, I could never again get searches on ANY phpbb to work right for me. I half suspect the developers snuck a line in the code to return random results for any username that matches "Kela*" :)

5eraph also said "the Updatepack versioning is already about as good as it gets". In the case of Ryan's, I completely agree.

The updatepack format in my prev. post was just a possiblity for other update pack makers. I don't think updatepack naming really needs standardization, for two reasons: 1. You rarely install more than one updatepack. 2. They already stand out among addons, because we know their names from constant use. The same is not true for a single addon by some random loser (like me!) :) While putting addons in a different dir from addons makes for better organization, I leave Ryan's pack in with my addons because It's the only file with UpdatePack, has the shortest title, and is the only file above 40MB, so it's easy to find.

Updatepacks like Ryan's wouldn't really benefit, as his are releasee as new packs, and fairly infrequently. Plus, his naming works just fine.

Addons, though. That's another story. :)

biatche made a good point, that putting the author first would make it hard to find addons with similar program names created by different authors. While I've been remembering my addons by who created it, I think having program name first and the author last would work better. Program name first makes does more sense, since the information is presented in descending order of importance. Sorry if I bruise any creator egos, but your name just isn't as important as the program's :)
Ricktendo64 said:
But mostly I use
UserName_ProgramName_Addon_Addon&ProgramVersion
Example: Ricks_Notepad++_AddOn_v2.1.rar
I use 12 or 13 or Rick's addons, and his naming is always well thought out. Which is much more than I can say for most addons I've downloaded. :) But Rick's above example demonstrates the problem with the current methods of naming; the lack of information can be really confusing when viewed locally.

If that file was in my addons dir, I'd know v2.1 is the addon version, but I'd have no idea what version of Notepad++ is inside, nor will I know when it was released. I can look at my created/modified date, but that's a right click away (I hide those fields in most folders), and at best, it's just a rough estimate of when it was created.

Say I have a Ricks_Notepad++_Addon_v2.0.cab I know to be NPP 4.0.2. Without opening the archive, I still don't know whether Ricks_Notepad++_AddOn_v2.1.rar is NPP 4.1.0 or if it's just a re-release of NPP 4.0.2 even if the created date is later than NPP4.1.0's release date.

However, if I see this list of files:

Ricks_Notepad++_4.0.2_Addon_v1.rar
Ricks_Notepad++_4.1.0_Addon_v1.rar
Ricks_Notepad++_4.1.0_Addon_v2.rar

I know what version it is, and which is the newest.

Rick: I bet you didn't realize you created so many hypothetical NPP addons, did ya? :)

I really like Siginet's & biatche's ideas of using the addon's release date as the version. It adds more useful info without compromising the name's readability. The only possible downside I can see, is the different ways people format dates. May 8, 2007 could be 5.8.07, 05.08.07, 8.5.07, 08.05.07, 07.05.08, 07.5.8, 07.08.05, 07.8.5, 7.05.08, 7.08.05, etc...

To use the dates successfully, the format would also have to be standard. But I definitely think the benefits make it worth the initial effort.

So, if we use biatche's & Siginet's ideas of revisions and program name first, and release date being the addon's version, that would look like this:

First release on April 1, 2007:
Notepad2_2.0.15_Addon_v7.04.01_KZ.rar

Bugfix released today.
Notepad2_2.0.15_Addon_v7.05.08r1_KZ.rar

Both look good to me. I must admit, I like both more than my original suggestion.

Two possible variations to consider would involve moving Addon to the end, since it's the least important information in the filename (unless you're the integrator :) ) and a second using the author to separate the program version from the addon's version.

Notepad2_2.0.15_v7.05.08r1_KZ_Addon.rar

Notepad2_2.0.15_KZ_v7.05.08r1_Addon.rar

Looking at them both, I think the first works better than the second, since it puts the author's tag in a more prominent place (the end) than buried in the middle. The first, however, might be confusing with the two versions stuck right next to each other.


Thanks for replying to this, guys. long posts that are insta-blown-off can be a very traumatic experience to a writer, ya know. :)

Kel
-KZ

Professional writer/musician/lunatic on closed course. Do not attempt.

User avatar
5eraph
Site Admin
Posts: 4618
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:38 pm
Location: Riverview, MI USA

Post by 5eraph » Tue May 08, 2007 6:37 pm

kelaniz wrote:...long posts that are insta-blown-off can be a very traumatic experience to a writer, ya know.
As long as it's readable then I don't have a problem with short story-length posts. Things like punctuation and logical breaks make a huge difference. ;)

You have a point with the search feature. It took me a long time to learn how to use phpbb's search function to get good results. Hopefully v3 isn't as picky with it's options and search terms when it's finally finished.

Siginet's idea of addon dating is growing on me, but to reduce ambiguity a four digit year should be used as specified in ISO 8601. Enclosing it in brackets might also help to prevent confusion when distinguishing between addon and application versions. Here's an extreme example using both suggestions and putting the build date at the end of the name:
  • Notepad2_2.0.15_KZ_Addon_[2007-05-08r1].rar

biatche
I can't read
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:49 am

Post by biatche » Tue May 08, 2007 7:16 pm

I really think readability is important .. Inserting date is nice, as I had originally suggested, but I think that makes the file-name really long. Too long, have a huge list it gets annoying to read. Too many numbers isn't nice. Imagine 20 filenames and so many numbers in all of them.

Perhaps insert a date stamp into the addon, like 070508.stamp.. (or why not just refer to forum thread) but actually, just tagging it with kz1, kz2 and so on is good enough.. I don't see how it's going to go wrong there... it's simple, and it works. Anyway date method in brackets work too, so long as no one's lazy .. i forget dates often hehe.

its good to categorize addons in front... so that, particularly themes, i usually integrate those first. Do any of you have an order in which you integrate? I often integrate rvm core first, then themes, then addons, then later system ones like wmp10 and lastly any quick hotfix addons.. To mix themes up with main addons will be messy, don't you think?

User avatar
ricktendo64
Posts: 3213
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:27 am
Location: Honduras

Post by ricktendo64 » Tue May 08, 2007 7:20 pm

IMO the name should always go first, I vote for this format
Siginet wrote:Example:
Siginet_Ad-AwareSE_1.06r1_AddOn_v7.05.07.rar

User avatar
MrNxDmX
Moderator
Posts: 3112
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 7:33 am

Post by MrNxDmX » Tue May 08, 2007 7:50 pm

ricktendo64 wrote:IMO the name should always go first, I vote for this format
Siginet wrote:Example:
Siginet_Ad-AwareSE_1.06r1_AddOn_v7.05.07.rar
One more vote from me for this format.

biatche
I can't read
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:49 am

Post by biatche » Tue May 08, 2007 8:13 pm

Nah, imagine you have 20 addon makers in future and each of them tag it that way... and you wanna remove, or track the version you got for that addon. It's not gonna be nice.

I can provide a screenshot of what I mean.

What I think is good is to give these addons a proper label... Addon can mean so many things.... internet explorer addon? (plugin)

After all, you only use these addons for your integrations. Maybe something like Raddon or Iadon (integration addon).... So some beginner might later see.... oh so what's this addon for.. and goes clueless, but he could google iadon and learn bout rvm or integrating addons or such.

User avatar
Siginet
Site Admin
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Siginet » Tue May 08, 2007 9:22 pm

From reading into the replys I would say I would rather have the user name moved after the programs name and version. This way if the files are listed they would list alphabetically with the programs name. :)

like:

Ad-AwareSE_1.06r1_SiginetAddOn_v7.05.08.rar

This way if you look at the name it breaks into 2 simple parts:
Ad-AwareSE_1.06r1 and SiginetAddOn_v7.05.08

I choose the format Year, month, day because it fits better alphabetically even though it is at the end and doesn't matter much anyways. But for instance... if there was another release every month with the same name it would be listed better in an alphabetical order.


Ad-AwareSE_1.06r1_SiginetAddOn_v7.05.08.rar
Ad-AwareSE_1.06r1_SiginetAddOn_v7.06.19.rar
Ad-AwareSE_1.06r1_SiginetAddOn_v7.07.28.rar
Ad-AwareSE_1.06r1_SiginetAddOn_v8.01.03.rar... and so on.
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

User avatar
ENU_user
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:42 pm

Post by ENU_user » Tue May 08, 2007 9:43 pm

a date says much more then some useless version numbers. i used this naming before for some addons rls
version numbers are useful for the apps as mentioned but to have
the addon's (update) date as the v_ for the addon --> is better. glad you started figuring this out :P

User avatar
ricktendo64
Posts: 3213
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:27 am
Location: Honduras

Post by ricktendo64 » Tue May 08, 2007 10:58 pm

OK Siginet that looks better and makes more sense, but one problem:
Its gonna be tough for me to change the habit of me naming my addons (don't ask me why cause I could not tell you, I guess I'm a creature of habit :P)

Off Topic: Almost my 1 year anniversary of joining RVM.net, I want to thank all of you guys, Ive leaned A SHIT LOAD in my time on this forum.
Image

biatche
I can't read
Posts: 326
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 2:49 am

Post by biatche » Wed May 09, 2007 12:28 am

A date may tell you a lot, but I don't think a date is gonna make integrations better, or faster.. just gonna add more effort to naming. i think -r1 or -r2 is sufficient. just have the dates in the changelog for reference, don't think dates matter so much for addon packs, apart from those that have like a signature database... like spywareblaster, adaware.... those having dates would be good.

I believe it should be named in order of importance

Addon_ProgramName_ProgramVersion-ExtraVersion-maintainer.ext

Addon -- well i download a lot of rar files and 7z files of different types to one directory, then later resort. so of course its important to tell its a rvm addon, better yet, give it a special name rather than just call it addon, there are plenty types of addons for different stuff
ProgramName -- of course that's the program you're dealing with
ProgramVersion -- of course you wanna know waht version
ExtraVersion -- -r1,r2, r3 or whatever... for that version, when there are updated releases for the same version
Maintainer -- least important

maintainer and extraversion can be merged too... to have it like Maintainer1, maintainer2 and so on..

Simple, and readable is best. i guess im just repeating... would be interested to know why my idea isn't very popular.

User avatar
kelaniz
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:37 pm
Location: Land of Broken Dreams

Post by kelaniz » Wed May 09, 2007 11:35 pm

Sign me up with a vote for Siginet's idea. It looks a little odd at first, but two distinct filename parts is the best info-size-readability combo I've seen so far.

biatche: I usually integrate like this: UpdatePack, nLite Tweaks, Addons in one batch. I do copy my I386 each step, so if something screws up, I can revert, instead of starting over. I don't see the benefit of performing separate integrations of addons by type. The scripts still perform the same tasks, and you still end up at the same place. IMO, an addon that botches another addon is probably gonna do it no matter how you integrate.

For the record, I don't think your idea is bad. It does work great for linux kernels, after all. But addon management is a different animal. I think we can all agree the ideal naming format is one which provides a good balance of useful info, size and readability.. If everyone uses the same date format, a four-digit year isn't needed. Similarly, bracketing the date doesn't improve readability more than the preceding underscore. It does, however, distract the eye from the program name, which is the primary thing you're looking for. Once you find the program name, the date/version is secondary info.

I originally thought r1, r2 ,r3 as the entire addon version worked for tracking addon changes, but as ENU_user said "a date says much more then some useless version numbers" and I agree. The problem with versions is, it seems everyone who knows how to zip something thinks it needs a version. Most people don't know any versioning systems, so they create one from what they've seen before, and they usually get it wrong. Look at any collection of Windows themes to see what I mean. Here's one I actually saw yesterday:

SuperSexyStyleV10 2.0 beta Rev4 FINAL

If you start asking users to self-version their addons, expect some pretty crappy version formatting to appear. (not from anyone in this thread, I'm sure). It's much easier to use a simple yy.mm.dd date, which most everyone knows, than to: 1. Agree on a versioning format 2. Explain, since most people may not know it, and 3. Hope everyone gets it right every time. :)

Now, for addons that share a date (ex: release, then quick bugfix) I think your idea of a 'r1,r2,r3' after the date works well. You get the release info from the date, and the revision info from just two more characters. That sure beats adding a timestamp. :)

Finally, labeling addons according to type... If addons are properly named, this is redundant. If the addon is a theme, say so in the program name: Theme_Zune_v1.0 The problem with labels is they allow for 'creative' naming like in my bad version example. If labels were required, there'd have to be a post somewhere with a list of "acceptable" labels. No one would remember them all, or want to check them before naming an addon. Then there'd be addons that fit equally under multiple labels, like Kels' Uberpack, (or whatever it's called). Some people would add multiple labels, create entirely new ones, or misspell existing ones.

I tried labels once on a site that let users upload images and label them according to guidelines I set. These were smart people, but for 1000 images, there were 922 unique labels... Oh, the fun I had changing them...

Anyway, sorry if I sounded like I was beating up on your ideas, biatche. If I did, that wasn't my intent.

Rick: I'm a creature of habit too, but that's what Post-It's on your monitor bevel were made for :) Besides, If everyone started formatting their addons, I wouldn't pick you to be that last lone renegade posting Ricks_ScrewYouFormatSuggesterGuy_Addon_v0.1b31rev337_[20070508]_FINAL_.rar :)
-KZ

Professional writer/musician/lunatic on closed course. Do not attempt.

User avatar
Mrs Peel
The Dominatrix Recoded
Posts: 1344
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:02 am
Location: Aotearoa
Contact:

Post by Mrs Peel » Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:27 am

I don't get time to read forum posts anymore, but this has been a very worthwhile conversation to follow.

For me personally, I like to have the addon maker listed first because I am extremely fussy about knowing where stuff came from so I can know the quality of work to expect. Also I keep a private addon collection of stuff that I never intend to release publically and I prefix that with a different name to help me distinguish my two collections when I am integrating stuff.

I very very much like the idea of including a release date in the file name tho and, as siggie points out, this means the files will sort in an order which helps you easily identify a more recent release of the same software version. But if we are going to use date stamps then it will of course be essential to all use the same convention of Y/M/D and I think 2 digit year is better cos it keeps the filename a tad shorter., eg:

MrsP_Software_Name_Addon_v1.2.34-070701.cab

This conversation has inspired me to go and rename my addon collection as I update them all to include installers. I'm gonna shuffle off and do that now.....

Cheers for this post kelaniz.

:)

PS: A simple suggestion to peeps who prefer to not have the pack makers name at the beginning of the file name... that used to annoy me back in the early days also (until I started to recognise that there was a huge difference in quality between different addon makers work and I grew to avoid all packs released by certain people) so I used to use a mass file renamer program to remove all the pack makers names. Just a thought yeh?

rootfile
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:46 am

Renaming

Post by rootfile » Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:12 pm

@ Signet May 08, 2007.

I actually think dating would be more useful in the Entries.ini file, where I've seen dates listed as 2007/01/07, 07/01/2007. etc., which defeats the utility of the hotfix/addon column sorting feature in nLite because you can't reliably sort by date because of the different formats.

Otherwise, I agree on standardizing the addon names. I'll start issuing mine in any format members can agree on.

Sm0ker
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 5:45 pm
Location: UK

Post by Sm0ker » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:20 am

Been following this with some interest myself as I tend to rename the addons with the addon maker name first as that's how I like to sort the addons.

Regarding the date format this may be a bit trouble some due to the different ways memebers on this site use the dates for example I use the format of dd/mm/yy as that hows I prefer it due to being british, but I would suggest keeping it in the format of yy/mm/dd as this would then keep the files sorted in chronological order.

Hopefully, with time the addon naming will become standardised.

User avatar
Siginet
Site Admin
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Siginet » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:06 am

As for the date I think yy/mm/dd is the best order. I still think the naming structure should be Program Name as the first half and Creators name second half. It keeps everything alphabetical. It would be pretty easy to see the name at the end. For listing of addons on the site I would prefer to list them by application name.

I also plan on making it possible to add addons from multiple directories and listing them in a listbox sometime in the near future. Then people should be able to keep their addons in subdirectories if they wish.
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

newsposter
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:31 am

Post by newsposter » Mon Jul 02, 2007 9:49 am

yyyy/mm/dd please.......

User avatar
Siginet
Site Admin
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Siginet » Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:38 pm

I don't really think there would be much of a need for the entire 4 digit year. I mean... are we really going to be making addons in 2100? ;) I think it would just add extra un-needed characters to the name.

But I could live with it if that is what's decided. :)

Example:
ProgramName_v1.0-Username_YYMMDD.ext
Adaware2007_v7.0.13-Siginet_070702.7z
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

User avatar
Sanjay
I can't read
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:28 am
Location: New Delhi, India

Post by Sanjay » Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:26 pm

My vote is for Siginet's suggested format. I personally think his rationale and the logic behind the naming convention suggested by him, makes the most sense.

Code: Select all

ProgramName_v1.0-Username_YYMMDD.ext 
Example: 
Adaware2007_v7.0.13-Siginet_070702.7z

User avatar
code65536
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 2:58 pm
Location: .us
Contact:

Post by code65536 » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:07 pm

Not to be too pedantic, but consistency in hyphens and underscores would be nice, too. The prevalent practice is to use underscores as a replacement for spaces and for hyphens to delimit the various "fields" in a name (thus leaving the underscore to be used only within each "field"). I personally like hyphens as delimiters, too. But if people want to have the two switch roles and use the underscore as the delimiter, that's fine, as long as it's consistent (i.e., not using both hyphens and underscores as delimiters in the same filename). Also, I think that having the version and date next to each other would be more logical, as date is just another form of version identification (I'm still unsure about whether date should appear first or if version should appear first).

Also, I think that yyyy is *much* a better form than yy. Yes, Siginet is right that we don't need to disambiguate between centuries, but we *do* need to disambiguate between what the date field represents. Sure, people who are around a lot may know that nnnnnn = yymmdd, but for a newcomer, that may not be readily apparent. What is 070506? 7 May 2006? 5 Jul 2006? 6 May 2007? The main benefit of using year, month, date (aside from sorting) is to eliminate the month-date ambiguity, but that benefit cannot be realized unless it's clear that the first field represents year. And even if they could deduce what it means, they have to stop, slow down, and think about it. All that for two bytes in a filename? 8-digit representations offer much better semantic clarity.

Therefore, we'd have:

Name-1.0.0-20070727-Author.7z

User avatar
Sanjay
I can't read
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:28 am
Location: New Delhi, India

Post by Sanjay » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:22 pm

code65536 wrote:Also, I think that having the version and date next to each other would be more logical, as date is just another form of version identification (I'm still unsure about whether date should appear first or if version should appear first).
The date 'is' the version number of the addon.

Siginet's format suggests the following:
'Name of software' 'Underscore' 'Version number of software' 'Hyphen'
'Name of Addon Maker' 'Underscore' 'Date (which serves as the Addon Version number)'
Name of software_Version number of software-Name of Addon Maker_Date

Ofcourse there is one thing missing here, the word 'addon'. Thus the final format would be:

Name of software_Version number of software-Name of Addon Maker_Date-Addon.xxx

or

Adaware2007_v7.0.13-Siginet_070728-Addon.7z

User avatar
grief
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:31 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by grief » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:54 pm

i agree with signet about no need for 4 digit year. i like the format he uses with a slight modifications mainly to be a little more understanding to new folks. i like underscores because its easier to read and i'm used to them being the computer _spacemark_, and hyphens just run things together not seperate. i changed the date to month - day - year. i know alot of folks use other formats but this is still the standard for the world isn't it? :P

Example:
ProgramName_v1.0_Username_MM-DD-YY_addon.ext
Adaware2007_v7.0.13_Siginet_7-02-02_addon.7z

User avatar
Siginet
Site Admin
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Siginet » Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:58 pm

code65536 wrote:Not to be too pedantic, but consistency in hyphens and underscores would be nice, too. The prevalent practice is to use underscores as a replacement for spaces and for hyphens to delimit the various "fields" in a name (thus leaving the underscore to be used only within each "field"). I personally like hyphens as delimiters, too. But if people want to have the two switch roles and use the underscore as the delimiter, that's fine, as long as it's consistent (i.e., not using both hyphens and underscores as delimiters in the same filename). Also, I think that having the version and date next to each other would be more logical, as date is just another form of version identification (I'm still unsure about whether date should appear first or if version should appear first).

Also, I think that yyyy is *much* a better form than yy. Yes, Siginet is right that we don't need to disambiguate between centuries, but we *do* need to disambiguate between what the date field represents. Sure, people who are around a lot may know that nnnnnn = yymmdd, but for a newcomer, that may not be readily apparent. What is 070506? 7 May 2006? 5 Jul 2006? 6 May 2007? The main benefit of using year, month, date (aside from sorting) is to eliminate the month-date ambiguity, but that benefit cannot be realized unless it's clear that the first field represents year. And even if they could deduce what it means, they have to stop, slow down, and think about it. All that for two bytes in a filename? 8-digit representations offer much better semantic clarity.

Therefore, we'd have:

Name-1.0.0-20070727-Author.7z
Yes I would like to see hyphens and underscores if possible. But we know that not everyone will follow the standards perfectly. I'll make a simple addon formatting program when I get time. That way it will be a simple job to rename the Addons. I'll make the formatter try to read the entries file if it exists to get as much info as possible for the name of the addon. If it can not get the proper info it can ask the user for input.

I understand your logic about the 4 digit year now. I can see that being important now.

@Sanjay Woops... I thought I edited my post with Addon in the name. Sorry people. But yes it will still need to have Addon in the name somewhere.
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

User avatar
grief
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 5:31 pm
Location: Ohio

Post by grief » Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:20 pm

if you use underscores to seperate (like a space) and hypens in a month-day-year format it stands out. easier than reading 8 digits to represent a date imo.

20070101 for example. its not quite as obvious.

User avatar
Siginet
Site Admin
Posts: 2894
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:07 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by Siginet » Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:33 am

I think it would be good to only use one hyphen The hyphen in the middle to split the name of the program and the name of the addon. It makes it much more visible. It will be impossible to make the format perfect for everyones taste but I think if it were done this way it would be the closest we can get:
Adaware2007_v1.0.13-SiginetAddon_2007_07_02.7z
Image
--Siginet--

Techware
Your Virtual Technician
Computer Management Software

Post Reply