Same here. new compiled plugins loads in SP2 but not in SP1.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Nicolas Burtnyk <nico...@redshift3d.com>wrote: > 2014 SP2 *does* have API changes, even to the extent that plugins compiled > against 2014 SP1 are not loadable in 2014 SP2. > > Our installer got broken by the weirdness in version numbers. In all > versions back to 2011 (and probably before that), the "minor" version > referred to the SP#, i.e. 2011 SP2 is 9.2.xxxx. The SAPs start at minor > version 5, with a similar +1 on the minor for SPs, e.g. 2011 SAP SP1 is > 9.6.xxxx. > > So I agree that the version number is "wrong" for 2014 SP2. > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Luc-Eric Rousseau <luceri...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> looks alright to me. >> >> the build number change tell me SP2 is indistinguishable from SP1 >> except it's got some code change that caused 5 builds but dont affect >> API or scene file. However, if SP1 is indeed a 11.1 instead of 11.0, >> then there must have been API change or something that affects the >> version of the scene file. >> >> you can see other examples of build numbers here.. >> http://xsisupport.com/2012/07/18/softimage-build-versions >> >> 2011 SP2 changed persistence. goddamn shader persistance bug and the >> only time we've done a SP2 at ADSK >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Hans Payer <hanspa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 0.0.05 rather >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Hans Payer <hanspa...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Please someone explain, >> >> >> >> How does naming a release SP2 compare to SP1 has a version number >> >> increment of 0.0.03? >> >> >> >> 2014 SP1 = 12.1.94 >> >> 2014 SP2 = 12.1.99 >> >> >> >> Should itnot have been at least 12.2.xx? >> >> >> >> You can blame my code but I always have relied on point version to >> >> differenciate versions.In this case they both return 12.1. >> >> >> >> It has always been consistent at least since 2010. Why different now? >> > >
