Page 1 of 1
Version #s?
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:18 pm
by thelouisguy
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
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:24 pm
by Son of a Preacher Man
Ok, Adium was a previous project, reached 1.something or other.
Then began Adium 2, which debuted at v0.5 - this was later renamed to Adium X, but the name of the folder in App Support was kept, presumably for compatibility reasons.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:24 pm
by FredAkbar
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.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:20 pm
by Son of a Preacher Man
For consistency - it should probably be called Adium. That's what the app itself is actually named, and the number of places it's referred to as Adium X is dwarfed by the number of mentions of plain ol' Adium.
Though it's kinda nice to feel the history

Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:34 pm
by evands
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.
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:45 pm
by Son of a Preacher Man
If it ain't broke, don't fix it? Makes sense.