On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:09:46 -0400 Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, it looks like buildid (9788) is likely > should also be bumped, looking at the way downloads > are done... Do linux and Windows would be m5(9788) > and mac would be m5(9789) or m6(9789) When a decision is reached and the new Mac version is ready for download, I will post a notice on the Forum advising Mac owners to install the corrected version Rory > > I am *guessing* that the m# is SVN related > and the buildid number is courtesy build # related?? > > On Oct 31, 2017, at 2:03 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > It would be easy to bump the build number 414m6 just for macOS. > > Of course, the date is also changed, even if we keep the same > > build number. > > > > I am up for whatever makes sense. The issue is that it's > > not a code "problem" at all. > > > >> On Oct 31, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Patricia Shanahan <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I do not know if this is the right choice, but we should include doing > >>> both in our thinking. Rebuild 4.1.4 for Mac only, test, and upload as > >>> soon as possible. Meanwhile, create, test, and vote on 4.1.5, to pick up > >>> the upgrade service. > >> > >> I agree this what we need to think about. With the new 4.1.4 route we > >> should make sure that we can tell the difference between the bad original > >> and the repaired build. Is the date sufficient or would build number be > >> better? I really don’t like the idea of people being confused about what > >> they need to do to fix issues. Right now the message is to downgrade to > >> 4.1.3. > >> > >> I would like to know what Andrea and Matthias think since they have been > >> working with the upgrade system. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Dave > >> > >>> > >>> On 10/31/2017 9:30 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: > >>>> There have been over 1,000,000 downloads of 4.1.4. How many were of the > >>>> bad Mac version? > >>>> If we replace then how would those people know to upgrade? > >>>> This issue makes me think we need to have this be a new version so that > >>>> we can setup the upgrade service correctly. > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Dave > >>>>> On Oct 31, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Question: Assuming we have "correction" builds available, > >>>>> what do we do? Simply replace the online version with > >>>>> these? > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Rory O'Farrell <[email protected]> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
