+1 on this.
I think it makes sense to show the information in as many places as
possible. Having done all customer support for my own product the
last few years, it significantly cuts down on support traffic to have
version info easily accessible. If users can find it, most of them know that
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 09:59 +0100, Rüdiger Timm wrote:
Mathias Bauer wrote:
Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
Here I disagree. The version shound contain only the regular version
number, but why not showing the build version directly in the About
dialog below the version (instead of asking
Mathias Bauer wrote:
Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
Here I disagree. The version shound contain only the regular version
number, but why not showing the build version directly in the About
dialog below the version (instead of asking for CTRL-SDT to display it)?
Yes, please let's do this.
Rüdiger Timm wrote:
No, that one is incomplete. It only contains the workspace number
(UPD), not it's full name, f.e. 680m150(Build8995). Or do I confuse
things here?
We should IMHO show the full version
OpenOffice.org 2.0.1
and build information
SRC680 m150 (Build8995)
Rüdiger
Hi Heiner,
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:09:55 +0100, Heiner Rechtien wrote:
Mathias Bauer wrote:
Here I disagree. The version shound contain only the regular version
number, but why not showing the build version directly in the About
dialog below the version (instead of asking for CTRL-SDT to
Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
Here I disagree. The version shound contain only the regular version
number, but why not showing the build version directly in the About
dialog below the version (instead of asking for CTRL-SDT to display it)?
Yes, please let's do this. And it should be the
Charles Marcus wrote:
Why does the resulting Build ID that I get from executing said secret
key combination not seem to have anything in common with the current
Builds being offered at http://download.openoffice.org/680/ ?
I mean, 2.0.1 identifies itself as 680m3 (build 8968), while the
