Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

I probably misunderstand you here, but even with a very small update, beta testers were always contacted first in Patchou's era.

...

Can't you do anything more? As in, force them to do the proper thing?

---

There cannot be any release without the Beta testers knowing about it in advance. But correct me if I'm wrong, even during Patchou era, not all patches were beta tested.

I have been told that this incident will not happen again. I asked that every version (every variations) has to be signed by me before it is released.

I cannot be accountable for something I cannot control. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jieff
There cannot be any release without the Beta testers knowing about it in advance. But correct me if I'm wrong, even during Patchou era, not all patches were beta tested.

---

Yup, correct; not all patches were tested. But those were _only_ patches which didn't involve translating and didn't involve changes in features/options.

All (?) previous builds of Plus! 5, thus since 5.00, included at least one of those (translation jobs and/or added option and/or behaviour of an option which got changed and/or change in UI)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jieff
There cannot be any release without the Beta testers knowing about it in advance. But correct me if I'm wrong, even during Patchou era, not all patches were beta tested.

---

The thing is that with Patchou we didnt have to worry. There were NEVER such threads like this one. If you people implement something new or change the behavior of something, it should be tested (not only because it could cause trouble, also to see if the changes are well accepted. If your testers dont like what they're seeing, you should worry).

Pretty much wanted to confirm what cookie said, This whole thing is driving me mad, i can't believe it's been over a year and we're still dealing with the same problems

This is really bad, this reminds me of the Skype easy bits go crapware incident.

A desktop icon for plus world should obviously be an option, you should never add shortcuts to stuff without the user's consent.

Plus Service should be optional an I personally like I guess most users will prefer plus to only check for updates when it is running, there is no need for a service that wastes system resources.

I downgraded to 5.01 (This sort of BS is why I keep old installers around )

Yuna/kimahri should really get their act together, this is going further downhill with each new version released.

EDIT: I uninstalled 5.02 without choosing to delete settings or scripts and such, and then after a reboot that it requested, installed 5.01.
When I do /checkupdates, it reports no new version, can it be the updater stores the version in the registry separetly and still thinks I have 5.02?
I just hope that when a new version is released (hopefully) with this BS fixed, it will notify me.

Personally this really warrants a quick release that fixes only this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by temp4746
EDIT: I uninstalled 5.02 without choosing to delete settings or scripts and such, and then after a reboot that it requested, installed 5.01. When I do /checkupdates, it reports no new version, can it be the updater stores the version in the registry separetly and still thinks I have 5.02?

---

No.
The installed version number is stored and read correctly from and to the registry.

But the update system also relies on data read from their webserver (to compare the installed version number to). And this data is:
1) Not always accurate (current flaw in the system since Plus! 5.0)
2) Not always enabled as soon as a new version is released, it can take weeks (this is by design, to spread the load on the server and to minimize to spreading when a severe bug is found after releasing).
3) The manual check (the /checkupdates command) and the build-in automatic check get their data from two different locations. Both locations have their own lifetime and 'rules' so to speak and are not in sync right away after a release (this is also by design and it has also to do with point 1 and 2).

The most accurate, at this time of writing, is the build-in automatic check. (the manual check reports 5.00.702 as latest version)

quote:

---

Originally posted by temp4746
I just hope that when a new version is released (hopefully) with this BS fixed, it will notify me.

---

Simply check the website for the latest version and its number.

quote:

---

Originally posted by temp4746
Personally this really warrants a quick release that fixes only this.

---

Although I (and others) completely share your concearns and opinions, something like this is not quickly fixed. The reason is that it also involves third parties and sponsors and what not. The reality is that stuff like this is unfortunatly not easily fixed like that (without braking contracts and stuff). This isn't a 'simple bug' which can be fixed in-house in an instant so to speak.

Remove PlusService.exe!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jieff
I have been told that this incident will not happen again. I asked that every version (every variations) has to be signed by me before it is released.

I cannot be accountable for something I cannot control.

---

The current update (5.10.0.748) installed PlusService.exe without as much as by your leave.

I seem to remember something about a promise that this will not happen again.  Was I hallucinating at the time?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alexo
I seem to remember something about a promise that this will not happen again.  Was I hallucinating at the time?

---

Errr... I think you were hallucinating...
It was never promissed that they will remove PlusServices.exe (unfortunatly).

What you're referring to (the promise from Jieff that 'it' should not happen again) is the fact that a new version was released with some new things in it without going thru the proper channels like testing, translating, etc... nothing to do with PlusServices.exe...

It should have been promised if you get what I mean!