Hi All, As far as I know we don't have a process like voting. But I am very much in favour of, and so would vote for, the suggestion from "whatever" to have a default download for the latest stable version, and optional downloads for newer (AND older) versions addressed by their version number (like e.g. empty243.html) (this example is not arbitrary: it was and still is a very good version!). And, as Martin already suggested, I would also vote for a better and more thorough beta-testing process, with a primary focus on the standalone self-contained one-file TW (which still is your much valued core asset!).
Best regards, Ton van Rooijen On 22 aug, 16:17, Jeremy Ruston <jeremy.rus...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm just back from holiday, and wanted to say that TiddlyWiki's death > is greatly exaggerated. We'll find a way to work around the > restrictions that browsers have placed on the upgrade/import > functionality. > > Osmosoft continues to invest in TiddlyWiki, both directly and as part > of our work in TiddlySpace. TiddlyWiki is in many ways an unusual > project. Relatively few open source projects are so easy for end users > to consume. We do everything we can to keep it functional and relevant > for its faithful audience, whilst trying hard to extend it to new > areas, and broaden its appeal. Open source projects need to keep > moving to survive and be healthy. > > Best wishes > > Jeremy > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 4:03 AM, whatever <kbrezov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <mjbud...@gmail.com> 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 tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en. > > -- > Jeremy Ruston > mailto:jer...@osmosoft.comhttp://www.tiddlywiki.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
