So the only thing that will indicate the new version will be an updated date in the About page?
> On Oct 31, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:09:46 -0400 > Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com <mailto:j...@jagunet.com>> wrote: > >> Actually, it looks like buildid (9788) is likely >> should also be bumped, looking at the way downloads >> are done... Do linux and Windows would be m5(9788) >> and mac would be m5(9789) or m6(9789) > > When a decision is reached and the new Mac version is ready for download, I > will post a notice on the Forum advising Mac owners to install the corrected > version > > Rory > >> >> I am *guessing* that the m# is SVN related >> and the buildid number is courtesy build # related?? >>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>> >>> It would be easy to bump the build number 414m6 just for macOS. >>> Of course, the date is also changed, even if we keep the same >>> build number. >>> >>> I am up for whatever makes sense. The issue is that it's >>> not a code "problem" at all. >>> >>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I do not know if this is the right choice, but we should include doing >>>>> both in our thinking. Rebuild 4.1.4 for Mac only, test, and upload as >>>>> soon as possible. Meanwhile, create, test, and vote on 4.1.5, to pick up >>>>> the upgrade service. >>>> >>>> I agree this what we need to think about. With the new 4.1.4 route we >>>> should make sure that we can tell the difference between the bad original >>>> and the repaired build. Is the date sufficient or would build number be >>>> better? I really don’t like the idea of people being confused about what >>>> they need to do to fix issues. Right now the message is to downgrade to >>>> 4.1.3. >>>> >>>> I would like to know what Andrea and Matthias think since they have been >>>> working with the upgrade system. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Dave >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/31/2017 9:30 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>>>>> There have been over 1,000,000 downloads of 4.1.4. How many were of the >>>>>> bad Mac version? >>>>>> If we replace then how would those people know to upgrade? >>>>>> This issue makes me think we need to have this be a new version so that >>>>>> we can setup the upgrade service correctly. >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Dave >>>>>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Question: Assuming we have "correction" builds available, >>>>>>> what do we do? Simply replace the online version with >>>>>>> these? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> > > > -- > Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie <mailto:ofarr...@iol.ie>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > <mailto:dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org>
