> On 31 Oct. 2016, at 11:53 pm, Mike Kerner <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
