[ANN] calendar widget updated

Mike Kerner MikeKerner at roadrunner.com
Tue Nov 1 02:40:01 CET 2016

The problem that we run into is when someone goes off the grid.  I can
think of several tools that are, in effect, abandonware.  There are, for
instance, a certain mobile framework, a certain report writer, and a
communication framework for a file sharing service.  Let's start with the
mobile framework.  Two years after the author had stopped doing anything
with it, and it was incompatible with current versions of LC, LC was still
selling it in the store, and promoting it, even though the community was
pointing out that it was abandonware.  There is an alternate script editor
that went away, before making a reappearance.  If we are going to have mass
forking and posting, I think that better, tighter management of the
community widgets, including someone doing something similar to what Apple
does with the App Store when it says "there are too many of this kind of
app.  Yours doesn't do anything different" would make the experience of
widget shopping (whether the widget is paid or free) a lot cleaner.

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Monte Goulding <monte at appisle.net> wrote:

> > On 31 Oct. 2016, at 11:53 pm, Mike Kerner <MikeKerner at roadrunner.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > This seems like it's going to be a hindrance because every little group
> for
> > every little project is going to have to jump through more hoops.  I
> think
> > we should collectively try to noggin a better way, or we are going to
> have
> > chaos, and some number of people just throwing up their hands.  Perhaps a
> > centralized community widget domain would be ok, but we still would need
> > someone or an organization to manage it.
> What Peter is concerned about here is there being two different widgets in
> the community with the same version number and ID. There’s no need to
> change names if the changes are contributed to the original author (current
> maintainer). If Bernd doesn’t want to contribute the changes or Elanor
> doesn’t want to accept them then yes he should definitely distribute it
> under his own name.
> In the event the distribution is purely to gauge community interest to
> determine if it’s worthwhile contributing the change back to the maintainer
> my recommendation would be to take advantage of semver and leave the ID as
> is. Something like:
> metadata version is "1.0.1-alpha.1+berndn.coolchanges”
> Here I have bumped the version number then used alpha.1 for the
> pre-release identifier and then appended the patch author and a patch name
> as build metadata. This is a valid semver version string and also ensures
> that the widget won’t conflict with the version 1.0.1 the author releases
> or even the 1.0.1-alpha.1 the author releases.
> Cheers
> Monte
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On the second day, God created the oceans.
On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
   and did a little diving.
And God said, "This is good."

More information about the use-livecode mailing list