Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jpm

3.1.1 Alpha process

Recommended Posts

Starting now I will upload a version which can need more testing before becoming an beta release.

I need the help of every AutoIt lover.

Only the setup version will be available as the size is so near of the .zip one.

Remember we have made big progress in the cohabitation with the official release.

Very easy with the Scite editor to exercise one or the other. Thanks JdeB.

The alpha will replace the beta and vice versa. so just reinstall the beta if you don't like the alpha.

The "Check for updates" will show the alpha release when available.

Update your "AutoUpdateIt.au3" in "Extras->AutoUpdateIt" folder if you want to have it working before the next beta.

The first alpha will be 3.1.1.42A

See "3.1.1 Alpha thread" to know what is going on

Thanks for you testing

Last advice : use separate thread to describe your problem/question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the setup version will be available as the size is so near of the .zip one.

Remember we have made big progress in the cohabitation with the official release.

Very easy with the Scite editor to exercise one or the other. Thanks JdeB.

JP, do not assume everybody uses JdeB's packages. I know that I am in the minority here, but I actually know how to use SciTE, I understand SciTE's features, I know who the author of SciTE is (I get the impression most people think its JdeB), I can configure SciTE on my own, et cetera. In short, I don't use, need or want JdeB's distribution because I have my own setup. Currently, I'm not set up to support the cohabitation setup that is provided; I've not had time to get my stuff updated yet. As such, its either a ZIP build or nothing for me.

That is my reason for wanting a ZIP build. Other people have different reasons. The point of the ZIP isn't about the smaller size but rather for one reason or another, the installer is not (currently) an acceptable installation method. If you wish to upload the installer first on a slow connection, thats perfectly acceptable, but within a reasonable timeframe, a ZIP build does need to be uploaded, too, for those of us who do not or can not use the installer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JP, do not assume everybody uses JdeB's packages.  I know that I am in the minority here, but I actually know how to use SciTE, I understand SciTE's features, I know who the author of SciTE is (I get the impression most people think its JdeB), I can configure SciTE on my own, et cetera.  In short, I don't use, need or want JdeB's distribution because I have my own setup.  Currently, I'm not set up to support the cohabitation setup that is provided; I've not had time to get my stuff updated yet.  As such, its either a ZIP build or nothing for me.

That is my reason for wanting a ZIP build.  Other people have different reasons.  The point of the ZIP isn't about the smaller size but rather for one reason or another, the installer is not (currently) an acceptable installation method.  If you wish to upload the installer first on a slow connection, thats perfectly acceptable, but within a reasonable timeframe, a ZIP build does need to be uploaded, too, for those of us who do not or can not use the installer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was thinking that as the beta/alpha setup is installing separate files it was OK for alpha process. I does not intend to change the beta process.

I just reference Scite just to reinforce that not so advance people can know they have a simple way to exercise both.

The only overrided files are the include's which have been downward compatible.

I want to stay with the alpha no .zip beta with .zip if acceptable by majority. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Check for updates" will show the alpha release when available.

Update your "AutoUpdateIt.au3" in "Extras->AutoUpdateIt" folder if you want to have it working before the next beta.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You need to change the label at the top of main GUI, the one that acts as a seperator (line 133), when the GUI resizes it doesn't stretch all the way across the top of the window. Otherwise I'm glad this script is still being used.

My only question is why are we suddenly adding one more step to the process of version releases? I personally think that it will just confuse things. Even with this whole cohabitation thing we'll potentially have three versions of AutoIt installed. Personally, I only have one version: whichever is most recent. I installed the official release, and since then have just been overwriting it with the files from the beta .zip's. If I ever run into any major trouble, I downgrade to the most recent working version, I always keep backups of the last couple releases.

Edited by Saunders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, happens to me too. JP didn't fix some control hiding/positions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you fix the script?

I did it very quickly

Thanks for the help :(

About the new step I was criticize about releasing to fast beta not at the good level.

So when I will merge something I am not confident with I will introduce an alpha release as today the send/controlsend/array.

But I will deliver beta without alpha in the next future when I am confident with the nonregression

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I think I understand now JP. But you know what I would have said to all those people complaining? "Tough noogies. It's a beta version. Get over it. I'm JP and I AM ALL POWERFUL!!!" :(

Anyway, about AutoUpdateIt, I found out the problem. You used a comma in the $a_DownButtons declaration where it should have been concatenation and got it messed up.

Here's a fixed version, with a few other changes as I saw fit as well.

Edited by Saunders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah I think I understand now JP. But you know what I would have said to all those people complaining? "Tough noogies. It's a beta version. Get over it. I'm JP and I AM ALL POWERFUL!!!" :(

Anyway, about AutoUpdateIt, I found out the problem. You used a comma in the $a_DownButtons declaration where it should have been concatenation and got it messed up.

Here's a fixed version, with a few other changes as I saw fit as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, :(

I still modify a little to have optional display of alpha if not relevant I will put it in 3.1.1.42C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, :(

I still modify a little to have optional display of alpha if not relevant I will put it in 3.1.1.42C

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I added this at the top of Saunders copy. Declarations are fine now. Should not get declaration errors. popping up.

Dim $s_ReleaseVer, $s_ReleaseFile, $i_ReleaseSize, $i_ReleaseDate, $s_ReleasePage
Dim $s_BetaVer, $s_BetaFile, $i_BetaSize, $i_BetaDate, $s_BetaPage
Dim $s_AlphaVer, $s_AlphaFile, $i_AlphaSize, $i_AlphaDate, $s_AlphaPage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you fix the script?

I did it very quickly

Thanks for the help :(

About the new step I was criticize about releasing to fast beta not at the good level.

So when I will merge something I am not confident with I will introduce an alpha release as today the send/controlsend/array.

But I will deliver beta without alpha in the next future when I am confident with the nonregression

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My criticisms were because I felt like some of the major breakages could of been caught by the original developers with some more thorough regression testing. Fundamentally, I don't think there is a difference between "Alpha" and "Beta" except Alpha has a more confusing version scheme (I want build numbers to increase on files, not a letter in the setup/archive name to distinguish builds). I would say, stick with the beta process, forget the alpha process. If you feel that a build is going to be particularly buggy or may cause problems, add a warning message when you post the change log, but otherwise, please stick to the beta system. We, the developers, should put AutoIt through the alpha stage with regression testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly, :( I am with Valik on this one. Alpha testing should be done by the original developers and JP or Jon could run a set of standard tests (which I believe have been posted to the ftp site and should also be run by the developer prior to submission) prior to integrating into the new beta. Adding a formal Alpha release is just adding complexity without having much forseeable benefit.

JFYI, my AuotIt 3 configuration is to install the latest release and run the latest beta from within my development environment. I will then explicitly call the beta-release program if I want the new features. I always leave a copy of the last good beta executable when I get a new version, by building from the source files, not using the updater script. My SciTE configuration is usually set for the latest beta, so it is easier to enter things for testing new features.


David Nuttall
Nuttall Computer Consulting

An Aquarius born during the Age of Aquarius

AutoIt allows me to re-invent the wheel so much faster.

I'm off to write a wizard, a wonderful wizard of odd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peoble that 'vote' for .zip updates like me can be shure that my application Au3Update that fully supports the .zip files update ( release or beta ) as well as the compleate .exe install also get the latest features as well as a new option to easy switz inbetween the different updates as one 'autoitter' ones suggested me and if the .zip update is not available anymore this is a nice tuch to stick with the old updates available as keeped in the application library...

I'm almost finished the update but beta rev. 42 as stated is still not available...

kjactive :(

Edited by kjactive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly, :(  I am with Valik on this one.  Alpha testing should be done by the original developers and JP or Jon could run a set of standard tests (which I believe have been posted to the ftp site and should also be run by the developer prior to submission) prior to integrating into the new beta.  Adding a formal Alpha release is just adding complexity without having much forseeable benefit.

JFYI, my AuotIt 3 configuration is to install the latest release and run the latest beta from within my development environment.  I will then explicitly call the beta-release program if I want the new features.  I always leave a copy of the last good beta executable when I get a new version, by building from the source files, not using the updater script.  My SciTE configuration is usually set for the latest beta, so it is easier to enter things for testing new features.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was thinking it was an answer to what you (dev) express. The merging process is not a safe one when I don't receive non regression tests.

I will stay as I did and author of nonregression will assume their bugs.

I will upload the official beta 3.1.1.42. :( no more aplha will be available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking it was an answer to what you (dev) express. The merging process is not a safe one when I don't receive non regression tests.

I will stay as I did and author  of nonregression will assume their bugs.

I will upload the official beta 3.1.1.42. :(  no more aplha will be available.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think you are to blame, anyway. I hope that my frustration thread didn't give you that idea. You're simply the messenger, there's no reason to shoot the messenger unless the messenger gives the wrong message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...