Hello Manuel! On Saturday, June 25, 2005, 12:26 PM, you wrote:
>> I think Maxim means to be speaking in connection with the specific >> changes listed when 9Val made the announcement of the current (.31) >> beta, when he [Maxim] writes the words "generally better." > Okay, makes it a bit clearer, but why is there a need to ask? They > see if new bugs will be mentioned and get feedback to the fixed > things - so thy have everything they need to decide on their own. Well, not quite everything; as I said, I think he wants to write an msi wrap and get .31 up so new users (and upgrading regular users) will at least have the BayesIt function working. And then continue fixing the more "minor" bugs, like the empty line for some of us in Main Window/Specials being discussed in the thread beginning mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "All things are equal, but some things are more equal than others." ;) >> It's what we as beta testers are here for, isn't it? > It is. It is to mention bugs and to give advice for some improvements. :) I was sure you'd agree! >>> Thank you, man! I thought nobody would think the same as I do in >>> this part. ;-) >> Some of us--not you, I think, Manuel--had complained very strongly >> about 3.5.0.14, 3.5.25, and 3.5.26 having been put on the public >> download without the development team's asking us beta testers if we >> thought those were ready to be there. > I don't know if I did complain. If I have had the time to write to complain at > this time, I did complain. ;-) > But we complained about releasing a new version, which we haven't seen before. > This is a difference. No, no. 3.26 and 3.30 were fixes to 3.5, and 3.5.25 was a fix to 3.5, which is still the "official" designation of the latest version on the RitLabs public download page. But, click to download, and the dialog offers you, at present, 3.5.30. This is not a new version but a fix. And it went up before sufficient time was allowed to test the 3.5.30 msi. In that way, it went up with BayesIt--which was working in 3.5.26--broken. And several of us have called this to Maxim's attention, and he promised to put it back in the next msi, and then several of us have since posted to him not to forget doing that. And since, in doing that, he might--being human--introduce some other error, we need to have a look at the .31 msi for a good many hours before it is put on the public download page as the latest "write" of v. 3.5. You may be sure that if he doesn't, he will hear from, at least, me. I am trying to look out for Maxim's and for RitLab's best interest all the time, wearing both my hats, as customer and as beta tester. :) And I think you are doing that, too, Manuel!! >>> Moreover, you at RitLabs should please think about your version/numbering >>> system. Not only the confusion this system brings with it - there are >>> applications which check the installed version against a updated ini on >>> some servers to determine if the installed version is up-to-date. >>> Everybody will immediately realize that these applications will fail with >>> this >>> version/numbering system. :-( >> >> This comment is important! > Thank you. ;-) I am very glad that you wrote about this! My pleasure to praise you for it. :) >> However, I think it was only a slip on 9Val's part, having only just >> got back to work after having been away, to offer the 3.5.31 rar as >> "3.5.0.31." Just my own speculative opinion, of course. :) > Okay, roadmap and things have been discussed several times. I don't think we > should discuss that a this point. I wasn't talking about the roadmap. I was talking about that 9Val wrote the message to All which announced "3.5.0.31." mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Whereas, Maxim had been announcing the previous few betas, 3.5.25, 3.5.26-29, and 3.5.30. So, I think 9Val did the misnumbering--or at the very least failed to catch it, of this beta 3.5.0.31--because he had been away and the change to the more "realistic" numbering system either escaped his notice or he had a temporary lapse, a typo sort of thing, when he either received the rar numbered with 0 (like 3.5.0.14 was), or actually typed it in while writing his part of the code for 3.5.0.31 ([3.5.31], as I agree with you and others that it *should* be numbered.) > Since the internal version is "3.5.0.31" too, a developer must have change > 3.5.30 to 3.5.0.31. It's not only the "wrong" numbered rar archive. ;-) See above. 9Val is a developer, isn't he? And he made the announcement. I think it was a slip--I think you will find--if he should comment on this sometime, that he agrees with you and Maxim about the numbering convention, that it should be 3.5.30 and then 3.5.31. -- Best regards, Mary The Bat 3.5.0.31 on Windows XP 5.1 2600 Service Pack 2 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.5.31 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
