Hi! I have a few suggestions. Instead of having simply empty.html, why not use versions in name, like empty263.html? That way, you could use "versioning" like File- Hippo. For example, on tiddlywiki.com, you could have the normal download page with the latest final/stable version, but you could also keep a list of all the older download pages (which would also display a list of improvements/bug fixes/new functions (maybe on a slider), which I noticed isn't available on the main page anymore nor apparently anywhere else in the wiki) linking to older empty*.html files. And you could have a page for developers where developers could download the latest development/unstable version. So on the main page, the link would be to empty262.html and on the developer page, you would have links to, say, empty263.html and empty264.html and you could specify the version's status (RC, beta, alpha...). Of course, instead of version number in the file name itself, you could use subfolders. In the tiddlywiki file itself, you could then have multiple links, like "Update to the latest stable version (version number)", "Select an older stable version" (which would display a list of all the older versions higher than the one you currently have) and "Developers only" (where developers could choose unstable versions). That way you could avoid the confusion over whether to upgrade or not, since the average user would see the latest stable version by default instead of like now when the latest version the user sees is 2.6.4, but when in reality 2.6.2 seems to be the latest stable release, 2.6.3 seems like a beta and 2.6.4 seems like an alpha. The average user wouldn't see 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 and would get an extra warning if trying to upgrade to either of those two versions. Development versions would only be announced on tiddlywikidev and the stable versions on both. As for bug reporting, the average user, I think, reports to this group or maybe tiddlywikidev. I'm not sure how many report to github. Perhaps adding a shadow tiddler (you could link to it in GettingStarted) with a bug form and an e-mail link (or something similar, perhaps just simple instructions on how to report a bug and where) would help improve things. Just a thought.
w On Aug 19, 6:25 pm, Martin Budden <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not sure if I understand the difference between a fully > > announced and tentative release. > > The difference is that we are not yet recommending that general users > upgrade. Only "developer users" should upgrade. I know that new users > get 2.6.4, but new users tend not to have plugin compatibility > problems etc. > > Anyway I'm looking for an improvement on our existing beta process. > The current beta process doesn't work - problems that should have been > found in beta were not found, and indeed I don't recall a problem > being found in any of the beta releases. So any suggestions for > improvement are welcome. > > Martin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
