Hello Manuel! On Saturday, June 25, 2005, 2:23 PM, you wrote:
>> > ... 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. > BayesIt functionality is very important, you're right. But who knows what else > did break with the new version. BayesIt error was detected a few days later > after the release - not after a few hours. I think that Natasha spotted it within a few hours--unfortunately, she put it in a correction, posted to herself, of her earlier post to Maxim saying .31 was running fine. Rather than directly posting the bug to Maxim. (This is not a criticism of Natasha; she did perfectly well--it was just my thought that Maxim might have missed seeing what she said, although maybe he didn't. And, in any case, perhaps even her quick spotting might not have been seen in time to keep v. .30 from going on the public download page.) > I would have suggested to wait a day or too and see for error-reports. If > everything's fine then, Maxim could have asked. :) He wants to work on the msi, I think. > For me, this question seems a bit "indecisive" (don't know if that fits > correctly here, sorry.)! I understand what you're saying. I just think your opinion flows from a misreading of Maxim's post. We both agree that he's doing a masterful job, and we want to support him by frank expression of our opinions, in every way that we can. < ... > >> 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. > "Sufficient time" - that's the expression, that is interpreted in very > different ways from all of us. ;) I agree with you that sufficient time should mean at least one day--especially given how the beta testers are scattered across all the time zones of the world. >> 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. > The correct way. I doubt, Maxim would have forgotten to put it in even without > the monitions. ;) He's a sweetie! He won't mind that we have nagged him. ;) >> 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 always write about a .31 msi. I didn't read anything about a msi > in Maxims question. Here, in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] , ==Direct quote, copy-and-paste: =================================== Maxim: Is 3.5.31 generally better than 3.5.30? Should we update the MSI and the download page? ==end copy-and-paste=============================================== Maxim says, "Should we update the MSI" > So if the question by Maxim implies that we first will have a look > (defined by me: at least one day. :D) at the new .31 wrapped in a > msi, than I'll stand still and will be quiet immediately... I think it implies that we will have a look. It is how long a look that's in question. I posted directly to Maxim in reply to the above quoted post that we should have "ample time" to test his newly wrapped 3.5.31 msi. I agree with you, Manuel, that we should have at least a day to test and comment. And since he asked the question, I expect he will pay attention to our need for more time than we got with the 3.5.30 msi. >> 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. :) > Nice Mary. I'll stand with you. Yay! :girlcheer: >> And I think you are doing that, too, Manuel!! > Heyho, yes I'll do. :star: >> 9Val is a developer, isn't he? > It seems to me he is one. A very good and competent one. He's my hero! > To make one thing clear here: I don't want to argue with Rit, nor > want to start something like the "flame-wars" we've sometimes seen > on this list. It was just a note, that me didn't really understand > the question, nor it's origin. Yes, and you should have put the note, and asked about the question and its origin. It will help all the developers who post here, and they will perhaps be able to tell us what they want in a little bit more detail, in the future. -- 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/
