HTML Secret Taboo [v0.3.2] [Livervt]
- May 9, 2018
- 2
- 31
Hi the new code is : bloodmoney
Have fun
Have fun
- Feb 6, 2023
- 2,285
- 1,377
- Jun 2, 2019
- 53
- 30
- Aug 3, 2022
- 1
- 0
think you may have inserted that '.' before the 2.91 there. as looking back at the last 20 or so releases it never existed. so it's a major DECREASE from 2.91 to .3a or an indication that someone has failed basic maths.
In all fairness Livervt could have changed the versioning from "2.91" to "0.3" by mistake or on purpose as a revision to the versioning he's using.
That's not really how versioning works, and not how the versioning has worked so far.
It's never been a case of "basic maths" as clearly shown by the different versions in the changelog i.e. Jumping from 2.80.3 to 2.90, 2.91 to (logically) 3.0 but now 0.3 and 0.3a.
- Dec 2, 2022
- 156
- 67
the change from 2.9 to 0.3 while being a fairly content filled update is proof in my mind that its .2.91 to .3 or a typo and 2.91 to 3a. Both options are the same in their end result. Meaning, it doesn't matter.
actually it is, without any further context which is exactly what I was asking about as there is /none/. So with no other context as to a renumbering or a refresh or something 2.91 is greater than 0.3a.
No, it's not.
Your "basic math" comment doesn't apply, and I already explained why.
To further add to what I said, in the case of it being a deliberate change Livervt isn't obliged to inform us of a change to versioning either.
Think you're confused here and my statements hold. My initial comment was simply
" Really confused on the huge change in version numbers. 2.91 -> 0.3a?!?! "
As there was zero context to the numbering change. With just two numbers 'basic maths' 100% can be applied and show that 2.91 is greater than 0.3a".
You are brining in external items (also with no indication to show that they actually apply) i.e. the devs ability to change a numbering scheme or their ability to report such a change. Either of which is fine /BUT WAS NOT STATED/ (i.e. back to the point of zero context). So all we still have is 2.91 and 0.3a. there are INFERENCES that it's a typo; that there's a new numbering scheme; or whatever. The initial point still remains that I was asking for actual clarification which so far has not appeared. Thanks for playing.
- Feb 6, 2023
- 2,285
- 1,377
- Feb 6, 2023
- 2,285
- 1,377
type it in, click "Enter the code", then if I click it again it works, must be something about the string formatting.