Build ID INSANITY...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Build ID INSANITY...

tanstaafl_bh
<vent>
Is there any reason why the versions of OOo cannot clearly show what
version they are?

When I installed OOo 2.0, it installs as 2.0. When I installed 2.0.1,
why does it still call itself 2.0?

Why do I have to Google to find some secret key combination like
CTRL-S-D-T just to be able to see what build I am using?

Why does the resulting Build ID that I get from executing said secret
key combination not seem to have anything in common with the current
Builds being offered at http://download.openoffice.org/680/ ?

I mean, 2.0.1 identifies itself as 680m3 (build 8968), while the current
Build at the above link identifies itself as m146 - what the heck is the
average user supposed to make of this?

Seriously, this is getting to be a major irritation to me. Not enough to
ever even make me think of leaving OOo, but come on, how hard would it
be to have some consistency here?
</vent>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

tanstaafl_bh
Charles Marcus wrote:
> <vent>
> Is there any reason why the versions of OOo cannot clearly show what
> version they are?

<snip>

I guess I should have ended this rant with a very big thank you to the
devs for OOo. In spite of this ongoing irritation, I'm a very happy OOo
user since the 1.0.x days, amd have used many of the dev builds on the
road to 2.0.

So, merry christmas and happy new year to you all, and thanks for giving
us all such a wonderful and free tool!

Charles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Sophie-21
Hi Charles,

Charles Marcus a écrit :
> Charles Marcus wrote:
>
>> <vent>
>> Is there any reason why the versions of OOo cannot clearly show what
>> version they are?

In the online help, search for version number and compilation number (or
something like that, my help is in French) and you may have found the
secret keys :)
I agree with you that this is not easy to find but remembering 1.x
branches, you didn't get the 1.0.1 release number too in them.

Version named mxxx (m147 currently) are developer releases and not
intented for users in a productive way, it's only snapshots for debuging
and control.

HTH
Merry christmas and happy new year to you too.
Kind regards
Sophie

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

tanstaafl_bh
>> Is there any reason why the versions of OOo cannot clearly show what
>> version they are?

> In the online help, search for version number and compilation number (or
> something like that, my help is in French) and you may have found the
> secret keys :)

That may have been where I found them, I don't remember... regardless,
it is ludicrous to hide this info like that - for criminy sake, jut put
a 'Details' button there if you don't want to simply show the Build
Number, but why hide the Build number in the first place is beyond me.

> I agree with you that this is not easy to find but remembering 1.x
> branches, you didn't get the 1.0.1 release number too in them.

So? Surely you aren't saying that's a valid reason for not changing it??

> Version named mxxx (m147 currently) are developer releases and not
> intented for users in a productive way, it's only snapshots for debuging
> and control.

I've been using Developer builds alongside Release builds for a long
time. In fact, we switched to the developer 1.9.x builds around build 79
and as far as I'm concerned, they have been far more stable than the 1.x
builds ever were.

Regardless - please, just put the Build Number in the 'About' window
like every other piece of software I've ever used does it.

Charles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Bugzilla from rich@hq.vsaa.lv
Charles Marcus wrote:
..
> Regardless - please, just put the Build Number in the 'About' window
> like every other piece of software I've ever used does it.

this has been brought up a lot of times. more or less everybody agrees
that this dialog is suboptimal and then it all goes away.
there issues about this, the collective one would probably be this :
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11465

one that deals with more precise version numbers :
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=58850

> Charles
--
  Rich

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Matthew L. Avizinis
my 2¢: www.openoffice.org advertises it now as version *2.0.1*.  Hence,
I agree it seems reasonable to have the version of the software ...About
box represents the actual version and not have to guess, especially if a
network person is supposed to install all the software in an office and
then later someone in that office wants to check to see if indeed it was
installed, right now that would be difficult for a typical user.
Matthew L. Avizinis
Gleim Publications, Inc.

Rich wrote:

> Charles Marcus wrote:
> ..
>
>> Regardless - please, just put the Build Number in the 'About' window
>> like every other piece of software I've ever used does it.
>
>
> this has been brought up a lot of times. more or less everybody agrees
> that this dialog is suboptimal and then it all goes away.
> there issues about this, the collective one would probably be this :
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11465
>
> one that deals with more precise version numbers :
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=58850
>
>> Charles
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Mathias Bauer
In reply to this post by tanstaafl_bh
Charles Marcus wrote:

> Why does the resulting Build ID that I get from executing said secret
> key combination not seem to have anything in common with the current
> Builds being offered at http://download.openoffice.org/680/ ?
>
> I mean, 2.0.1 identifies itself as 680m3 (build 8968), while the current
> Build at the above link identifies itself as m146 - what the heck is the
> average user supposed to make of this?

When the release candidates where delivered a new cvs branch was created
for them (starting with a new numbering for the corresponding master
builds, so we got m1,m2 etc.) while new development for the next release
continued with the "old" numbering (m146, m147 etc.). We did the same
when releasing 2.0 BTW.

I agree that it would be better to show the full version number in the
dialog directly. The current way seems to create a lot of irritations.

Best regards,
Mathias

--
Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead
Please reply to the list only, [hidden email] is a spam sink.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Laurent Godard-3
Hi Mathias

> When the release candidates where delivered a new cvs branch was created
> for them (starting with a new numbering for the corresponding master
> builds, so we got m1,m2 etc.) while new development for the next release
> continued with the "old" numbering (m146, m147 etc.). We did the same
> when releasing 2.0 BTW.
>
> I agree that it would be better to show the full version number in the
> dialog directly. The current way seems to create a lot of irritations.

yes it is a real pain when you're on users lists to identify the version
they're speaking about

i would suggest

1- put all the revision number in the OOo Name
2.0.1 instead of 2.0, everywhere, not only in the help

2- when you create a sub cvs branch for a RC
call it so that it contains the milestone it is based on
eg m146-1, m146-2, m146-3 aso

1 is important to ease support to users imho

laurent

--
Laurent Godard <[hidden email]> - Ingénierie OpenOffice.org
Indesko >> http://www.indesko.com
Nuxeo CPS >> http://www.nuxeo.com - http://www.cps-project.org
Livre "Programmation OpenOffice.org", Eyrolles 2004

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Mathias Bauer
Laurent Godard wrote:

> Hi Mathias
>
>> When the release candidates where delivered a new cvs branch was created
>> for them (starting with a new numbering for the corresponding master
>> builds, so we got m1,m2 etc.) while new development for the next release
>> continued with the "old" numbering (m146, m147 etc.). We did the same
>> when releasing 2.0 BTW.
>>
>> I agree that it would be better to show the full version number in the
>> dialog directly. The current way seems to create a lot of irritations.
>
> yes it is a real pain when you're on users lists to identify the version
> they're speaking about
>
> i would suggest
>
> 1- put all the revision number in the OOo Name
> 2.0.1 instead of 2.0, everywhere, not only in the help

That would be my choice also.

> 2- when you create a sub cvs branch for a RC
> call it so that it contains the milestone it is based on
> eg m146-1, m146-2, m146-3 aso

Here I disagree. The version shound contain only the regular version
number, but why not showing the build version directly in the "About
dialog" below the version (instead of asking for "CTRL-SDT to display it")?

Best regards,
Mathias

--
Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead
Please reply to the list only, [hidden email] is a spam sink.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Jens-Heiner Rechtien
In reply to this post by tanstaafl_bh
Mathias Bauer wrote:

> Laurent Godard wrote:
>
>
>>Hi Mathias
>>
>>
>>>When the release candidates where delivered a new cvs branch was created
>>>for them (starting with a new numbering for the corresponding master
>>>builds, so we got m1,m2 etc.) while new development for the next release
>>>continued with the "old" numbering (m146, m147 etc.). We did the same
>>>when releasing 2.0 BTW.
>>>
>>>I agree that it would be better to show the full version number in the
>>>dialog directly. The current way seems to create a lot of irritations.
>>
>>yes it is a real pain when you're on users lists to identify the version
>>they're speaking about
>>
>>i would suggest
>>
>>1- put all the revision number in the OOo Name
>>2.0.1 instead of 2.0, everywhere, not only in the help
>
>
> That would be my choice also.
>
>
>>2- when you create a sub cvs branch for a RC
>>call it so that it contains the milestone it is based on
>>eg m146-1, m146-2, m146-3 aso
>
>
> Here I disagree. The version shound contain only the regular version
> number, but why not showing the build version directly in the "About
> dialog" below the version (instead of asking for "CTRL-SDT to display it")?
>

Yes, please let's do this. And it should be the whole string including
mws, milestone and buildid.

Heiner

--
Jens-Heiner Rechtien
[hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Eike Rathke
Hi Heiner,

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:09:55 +0100, Heiner Rechtien wrote:

> Mathias Bauer wrote:
> >Here I disagree. The version shound contain only the regular version
> >number, but why not showing the build version directly in the "About
> >dialog" below the version (instead of asking for "CTRL-SDT to display it")?
> >
>
> Yes, please let's do this. And it should be the whole string including
> mws, milestone and buildid.

+1

  Eike

--
 OOo/SO Calc core developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer.
 GnuPG key 0x293C05FD:  997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3  9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Mathias Bauer
In reply to this post by Jens-Heiner Rechtien
Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:

>> Here I disagree. The version shound contain only the regular version
>> number, but why not showing the build version directly in the "About
>> dialog" below the version (instead of asking for "CTRL-SDT to display it")?
>>
>
> Yes, please let's do this. And it should be the whole string including
> mws, milestone and buildid.

So you mean exactly the same string as we currently show in the credits
dialog?

Ciao,
Mathias

--
Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead
Please reply to the list only, [hidden email] is a spam sink.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Rüdiger Timm
In reply to this post by tanstaafl_bh


Mathias Bauer wrote:

> Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
>
>
>>>Here I disagree. The version shound contain only the regular version
>>>number, but why not showing the build version directly in the "About
>>>dialog" below the version (instead of asking for "CTRL-SDT to display it")?
>>>
>>
>>Yes, please let's do this. And it should be the whole string including
>>mws, milestone and buildid.
>
>
> So you mean exactly the same string as we currently show in the credits
> dialog?
>

No, that one is incomplete. It only contains the workspace number (UPD),
not it's full name, f.e. "680m150(Build8995)". Or do I confuse things here?
We should IMHO show the full version
     OpenOffice.org 2.0.1
and build information
     SRC680 m150 (Build8995)

Rüdiger

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Matthew L. Avizinis
Rüdiger Timm wrote:

>
> No, that one is incomplete. It only contains the workspace number
> (UPD), not it's full name, f.e. "680m150(Build8995)". Or do I confuse
> things here?
> We should IMHO show the full version
>     OpenOffice.org 2.0.1
> and build information
>     SRC680 m150 (Build8995)
>
> Rüdiger
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
No confusion.  In fact, imho, I don't see why there should be so much
debate on this seemingly straightforward issue.  Every other open source
program I have ever used, e.g. Thunderbird, Filezilla, WinCVS, Eclipse,
The GIMP, etc. all display the full version number and sometimes the
build as well.  The point is that in this case the third digit is
materially important to knowing what version of the program you're using
because it's part of the structure of the version (three numbers
separated by two periods).  For other programs like JEdit, Crimson, or
7Zip, only two digits are used because it's not part of their system.  
So with OpenOffice it is important to show it in the About... box.  
Right now, a typical user has no way of know whether they are using
version 2.0 or 2.0.1 because when the newer is installed the displayed
version is still only 2.0 -- knowing the build number would be almost
useless to knowing the version because most folks don't know the
correlation between it and the version.  If more bug-fix versions of
2.0.1 are to be released then either the build or a fourth digit would
be materially significant to  knowing which version one has installed.
Peace to you,
Matthew L. Avizinis

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

G. Roderick Singleton-2
In reply to this post by Rüdiger Timm
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 09:59 +0100, Rüdiger Timm wrote:

>
> Mathias Bauer wrote:
> > Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Here I disagree. The version shound contain only the regular version
> >>>number, but why not showing the build version directly in the "About
> >>>dialog" below the version (instead of asking for "CTRL-SDT to display it")?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yes, please let's do this. And it should be the whole string including
> >>mws, milestone and buildid.
> >
> >
> > So you mean exactly the same string as we currently show in the credits
> > dialog?
> >
>
> No, that one is incomplete. It only contains the workspace number (UPD),
> not it's full name, f.e. "680m150(Build8995)". Or do I confuse things here?
> We should IMHO show the full version
>      OpenOffice.org 2.0.1
> and build information
>      SRC680 m150 (Build8995)
>

+1

I am finding that our newest users cannot find Ctrl-SDT and it confuses
them when asked what release they have. Better to improve Help > About
so that it, at the least, shows some more complete version info.

Better would be to include minor release numbers on the splash screen as
well.

On more thing I have noticed on this topic. The information in *NIX
bootstraprc is more complete than that included in windows
bootstraprc.ini. Would be nice if these were the same.

--
PLEASE KEEP MESSAGES ON THE LIST.
OpenOffice.org Documentation Co-Lead
http://documentation.openoffice.org/ 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Joost Andrae
In reply to this post by tanstaafl_bh
Hello G. Roderick,

please read my comments inline.

> Better would be to include minor release numbers on the splash screen as
> well.

The splashscreen is a bitmap...

>
> On more thing I have noticed on this topic. The information in *NIX
> bootstraprc is more complete than that included in windows
> bootstraprc.ini. Would be nice if these were the same.
>

Nowerdays it's program/version[rc|.ini] that holds the versioning
information.


Kind regards, Joost

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Kai Backman
+1 on this.

 I think it makes sense to show the information in as many places as
possible. Having done all customer support for my own product the
last few years, it significantly cuts down on support traffic to have
version info easily accessible. If users can find it, most of them know that
more version information equals speedier service. My experience is that
if the information is readily available they will provide it. As most support
request can be handled with a single mail, this will significantly cut
support burden.

 Mathias B. mentioned a credits dialog that has more info. Where can
you find it? I tried to look in the usual places like Help and could not locate
it?

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:45:09 +0100, Joost Andrae wrote:
>> Better would be to include minor release numbers on the splash
>> screen as well.
>>
>
> The splashscreen is a bitmap...

 ...and you can easily render into it using FreeType? :-)

 Take care,

  Kai

--
Kai Backman, programmer, [hidden email]
http://www.ShortHike.com - space station game

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Joost Andrae
In reply to this post by tanstaafl_bh
Hello Kai,

it's a hidden feature of the help/about dialog.

Open that dialog
press "SDT" whilst pressing the Ctrl (or Strg) button


Kind regards, Joost


>
>  Mathias B. mentioned a credits dialog that has more info. Where can
> you find it? I tried to look in the usual places like Help and could not locate
> it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Build ID INSANITY...

G. Roderick Singleton-2
In reply to this post by Joost Andrae
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:45:09 +0100, Joost Andrae wrote:

> Hello G. Roderick,
>
> please read my comments inline.
>
>> Better would be to include minor release numbers on the splash screen as
>> well.
>
> The splashscreen is a bitmap...
>

Not certain I understand. Are you saying that the bitmap is fixed and
cannot be changed or that the bitmap is such a pain to change that doing
so is not worth it? I ask because I see on invoking OOo that the
splashscreen dynamically shows loading progress and, also, that there is a
new splashscreen for the developer snapshots.
Please explain why adding the release and build info cannot be inserted in
the same manner as the progress bar.

>> On more thing I have noticed on this topic. The
information in *NIX
>> bootstraprc is more complete than that included in windows
>> bootstraprc.ini. Would be nice if these were the same.
>>
>>
> Nowerdays it's program/version[rc|.ini] that holds the versioning
> information.
>

Good to know. Thanks.
--
Documentation Co-lead
"Dinna meddle wi' things ye ken nuthin' aboot!"
J.H.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Build ID INSANITY...

Joost Andrae
In reply to this post by tanstaafl_bh
Hello G. Roderick,

having the version information displayed within the bitmap is a feature
that simply hasn't been implemented.
Adding the version information to that splash screen would mean that the
bitmap has to be changed for every build. This is not really manageable.
In case of the OOo-Dev2.0 build it's a setting within the build
environment to use the other splash screen instead of the OpenOffice.org
2.0 splash screen. The 2.0 spash screen will be used for 2.0.2 RC again.

Kind regards, Joost

> Not certain I understand. Are you saying that the bitmap is fixed and
> cannot be changed or that the bitmap is such a pain to change that doing
> so is not worth it? I ask because I see on invoking OOo that the
> splashscreen dynamically shows loading progress and, also, that there is a
> new splashscreen for the developer snapshots.
> Please explain why adding the release and build info cannot be inserted in
> the same manner as the progress bar.
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12