Don't have an account yet? Then register once and completely free of charge and use our wide range of topics, features and great options. As a registered member on our site, you can use all functions to actively participate in community life. Write posts, open topics, upload your pictures, put your videos online, talk to other members and help us to constantly improve our project and grow together! So, what are you waiting for? Become a part of us today!
Login or registerTo get support for a technical issue such as installing the software, to query a purchase that you've made/would like to make, or anything other than using our software, please visit our Customer Service Desk:
Open a Ticket
4 numbers. eg: 1.0.0.1
MMF2 is stupid in that is allows you to enter the version as a string, yet silently converts it into four numbers when compiling, possibly in a different way than you would do it yourself.
I remember reading that Windows executables do allow developers to add the version in string format (in addition to the four numbers), but am unable to find such info again.
As Stephen says it's 4 numbers, each number must be between 0 and 65535.
Yep, but neither MMF2 itself nor the help file tell us about this.
That's because any developer needing to divulge this kind of information would know about it... or at least Google it 
I fail to see the point of some of these topics, asif a developer is going to even get to a 0.0.0.65535 release without just hitting up the former minor version 0.0.1.0?
I don't see where this kind of rant is going to get anybody...
As Stephen says it's 4 numbers, each number must be between 0 and 65535.
Thanks for info!
I remember reading that Windows executables do allow developers to add the version in string format (in addition to the four numbers), but am unable to find such info again.
Are you talking about the "ProductVersion" field? With programs that I make with other software, I normally set the "FileVersion" field to a number version (e.g. 1.2.0.32), and set the "ProductVersion" to the build number ("120627b" if it's a beta version made in 2012, June, 27th). MMF2 doesn't have this field, though.
Alternatively, use the 1st number to denote the major version, and the remaining 3 to denote the date in year.month.day format. (e.g. 1.12.6.27 for v1 of the software compiled on 2012/06/27). There are no rules that say that software versions MUST increase by .1 each version.
That's because any developer needing to divulge this kind of information would know about it... or at least Google it
"needing"? MMF apparently allows me to enter the version, so I naturally do it.
I don't think MMF's target audience can be expected to expect their designation to be amended (even at build time rather than edit time, and in a way that is incompatible with version numbers used by Microsoft themselves in the past). And I don't think MMF Dev has a narrower target audience, as it is also being marketed to people who "just require more features".
So........ a developer is pretty much screwed if they did 65535.65535.65535.65535 as the version number? o_O
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
Almightyzentaco (Fusion 2.5 Tutorials)
Captain Quail (Firefly Tutorials)
