I have only been using Adium since about January (I first started on Fire and then Proteus). It always confused me that the Application Support folder for Adium says Adium 2.0, the current versions are 0.X, and reading this post
http://forums.cocoaforge.com/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0
I saw that Adium was once at version 1.6.
Could someone clarify why the jumps in version numbers. And why the version history page only goes back to version 0.50 (4/06/2004) when http://web.archive.org dates back to version 1.62 (10/19/2002)?
http://www.adiumx.com/history.html
Version #s?
- thelouisguy
- Latté
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:27 pm
- Location: Montreal
- Contact:
-
Son of a Preacher Man
- Crema
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:05 am
- Location: Derby/York, UK
- Contact:
Yeah, Adium 2.0 was never formally released. The whole time that Adium 2.0 development was going on, Adium 1.6.5.x was still the latest "official" release. Then, the Adium 2.0 project was renamed Adium X, and started at version 0.50. Since it's "Adium X" instead of just "Adium," it's okay for them to start the version numbers way back at .50 again. Adium 2.0, the app support folder, was simply never changed to "Adium X." Personally I think it should be, but maybe it's too much work, or too risky, or whatever.
Fred / Adium X 1.2.7
20" iMac w/ Intel Core Duo 2.0 GHz / 2 GB RAM / 256 MB Radeon X1600 / 250 GB HD / OS 10.5.4
FreeRice. Play a free vocab game on this ad-supported site to help fight world hunger.
20" iMac w/ Intel Core Duo 2.0 GHz / 2 GB RAM / 256 MB Radeon X1600 / 250 GB HD / OS 10.5.4
FreeRice. Play a free vocab game on this ad-supported site to help fight world hunger.
-
Son of a Preacher Man
- Crema
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:05 am
- Location: Derby/York, UK
- Contact:
- evands
- Cocoaforge Admin
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:55 pm
- Location: Decatur, GA
- Contact:
It'd be no work, we actually have commented-out code which would handle the transition... but we decided that a cosmetic issue with a folder which optimally the user should never see wasn't worth the risk of doing operations on the root folder containing settings, logs, etc... sure, for 80,000 users it'd go fine, but for 1 user his computer would crash for some other reason during the rename and he'd lose his logs, or something like that.
-
Son of a Preacher Man
- Crema
- Posts: 499
- Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 12:05 am
- Location: Derby/York, UK
- Contact:
