Dave Page wrote:
>>Not directly. The binaries would be corrupted. In the rare
>>case of typo
>>fixes without count change the count could be increased
>>manually. It's a
>> kind of version number anyway. We could use the date too.
> Why would binaries be corrupted?
CVS would change the file to insert the version, which would probably
corrupt the binary structure.
>>We don't need that. A newer language file also covers
> Does it? You mean, if we remove strings from the source, they remain in
> the po files after a merge?
Right, that's what pgadmin3-release.pot is good for. We rarely remove
strings, so this seems reasonable.
>>>Have you thought about documentation updates?
>>Um, no. No problem really, because we already can load the doc from a
>>zip. Consequently, we should stop distributing single files, and
>>distribute the zip only.
> In that case then, why distribute the languages seperately?
I don't understand the question. We *do* distribute the languages
> As I also suggested though, there should be an option to turn off
> auto-checking on the options dialogue. But I could live with non
Disabling autocheck and not updating immediately are different things.
>>Or toolbar button, which changes appearance if download is available.
> No, I don't think we should use the tool bar. It's there to allow the
> user to control the application, not to provide feedback.
Every 60 days (e.g.) updates are checked, and a feedback is given to the
user. After that, the user might decide to upgrade immediately, or do it
Statusbar icon seems the best solution (but it will need some effort;
tooltip and doubleclick on that icon must be supported)
In response to
pgadmin-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andreas Pflug||Date: 2004-12-03 12:26:14|
|Subject: Re: RFC: Update wizard|
|Previous:||From: Hugo Ferreira||Date: 2004-12-03 10:21:20|
|Subject: Re: [pgadmin-support] corrections v1.2 rc2: rpm 4 madrake 10.1|