New RDF and Maps/Image Release 1.30

Capn Trips · Post by **Capn Trips** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:11 am

xnappo: You apparently overlooked this [DeviceTypeAliases] change that Greg provided you for the Atlas OCAP RDF. I assume that it is required in ALL Atlas JP1.3 RDFs. (I certainly need it in the 3A333A33 RDF). Your RDF distro has a slightly different entry in the 30333033 RDF, and a completely different one (no "VCR" line at all) in the others (30003000, 30323032, 3A303A30, 3A333A33). Could you check those out?

xnappo · Post by **xnappo** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:18 am

Capn Trips wrote:xnappo: You apparently overlooked this [DeviceTypeAliases] change that Greg provided you for the Atlas OCAP RDF. I assume that it is required in ALL Atlas JP1.3 RDFs. (I certainly need it in the 3A333A33 RDF). Your RDF distro has a slightly different entry in the 30333033 RDF, and a completely different one (no "VCR" line at all) in the others (30003000, 30323032, 3A303A30, 3A333A33). Could you check those out?

Thanks Capn - you are right - you would think I would have gotten that right since I use that one! I will check those out and try to do another release this weekend with the issues from the last few posts.

xnappo

Post by **mathdon** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:16 am

I wanted to let the RDF development get reasonably stable before downloading the new release. Now I have come to download it, I have some stupid questions:

1. The files in the RDF Release Area (which it says are those in the current release) have a later revision number than those in the RDF Beta Area (which it says are ones intended for the next release). Am I misunderstanding the revision number?

2. I have downloaded the zip file from the link "RDF Files needed for IR and RM - version 1.30". In view of question 1, are the files in this zip actually those in the RDF Release Area or are they an earlier version?

3. I tried to answer these questions myself by downloading the RDFs that most interest me directly from the Release and Beta areas. to compare them with those in the zip file. What I downloaded turned out to be HTML files that I could not understand, despite them having the .rdf extension and being named appropriately for RDFs. What was I doing wrong? I tried everything I could think of but found no way of getting the actual RDFs from these areas.

One thing I did discover, from the zip file, is that RDFs for URC-7781 Extender A2, and for both extenders A1 and A2 for URC-7780, are missing. I want to supply those after I have made updates to them corresponding to those that you have made in the URC-778x RDFs that are present in the zip file. Do I post them in the RDFs - Development section? If so, is there any way to indicate that they are mature RDFs that should go (I hope) into the next release, rather than ones genuinely still under development?
_________________
Graham

Post by **The Robman** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 6:55 am

mathdon wrote:What I downloaded turned out to be HTML files that I could not understand, despite them having the .rdf extension and being named appropriately for RDFs.

My best guess is that you did a right-click>save on a link where you were supposed to click on the link in order to download the file.

xnappo · Post by **xnappo** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 7:59 am

mathdon wrote:
1. The files in the RDF Release Area (which it says are those in the current release) have a later revision number than those in the RDF Beta Area (which it says are ones intended for the next release). Am I misunderstanding the revision number?

This is an annoying artifact of the revision control system. When I label the files as a group as being part of the release, it adds a version number to all of the files. So version '812' in this case just indicates that they are all part of a release. I don't know if there is any way to prevent that and agree it is confusing. In the future I will at least make sure that when you look at the detailed information, you will see "812 tagging files for 1.30 release" or something so it is at least clear there was no real change to the file. Greg if you know something I don't here please chime in.

mathdon wrote: 2. I have downloaded the zip file from the link "RDF Files needed for IR and RM - version 1.30". In view of question 1, are the files in this zip actually those in the RDF Release Area or are they an earlier version?

They are the same.

mathdon wrote: 3. I tried to answer these questions myself by downloading the RDFs that most interest me directly from the Release and Beta areas. to compare them with those in the zip file. What I downloaded turned out to be HTML files that I could not understand, despite them having the .rdf extension and being named appropriately for RDFs. What was I doing wrong? I tried everything I could think of but found no way of getting the actual RDFs from these areas.

I am not having that exact problem, but I am having problems with my browser thinking that RDF files are XML and trying to parse them. At any rate, the easiest way I have found to get an individual RDF is to 'right-click' the 'As Text' button and do a save-as. If anyone knows how to get it to stop acting like an RDF is XML please let me know!

mathdon wrote: One thing I did discover, from the zip file, is that RDFs for URC-7781 Extender A2, and for both extenders A1 and A2 for URC-7780, are missing. I want to supply those after I have made updates to them corresponding to those that you have made in the URC-778x RDFs that are present in the zip file. Do I post them in the RDFs - Development section? If so, is there any way to indicate that they are mature RDFs that should go (I hope) into the next release, rather than ones genuinely still under development?

Sure, three choices here:
1. Add to Development, and post in this thread( https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12125 ) that they are ready to move from development to beta, and then if there are no issues they will be included in the next release.
2. PM me, same as above
3. Add them to the repository yourself following post 3 here: https://www.hifi-remote.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12125

Regards,
xnappo
_________________
Graham

Post by **mathdon** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:02 am

OK, I've got it. I was right-clicking and downloading the link that is the RDF name with the extension .rdf. It seems that I need to do that instead on the revision number. The download then comes with a .xml extension, which I then need to change to .rdf. If I just click on the revision number, I get the behavior that you see, xnappo: a message that "The XML page cannot be displayed". Not entirely obvious, I'm not surprised I got confused!

Is there a way of getting all the Beta section files together as a single zip file?
____________
Graham

xnappo · Post by **xnappo** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:25 am

mathdon wrote:Is there a way of getting all the Beta section files together as a single zip file?

Since the 'Beta' link always represents the latest files added, I can't really make a zip that will be the same as the beta area.

There are two ways to get a snapshot:

- The best way for people who are going to be actively contributing is the install SVN and follow the instructions in the 'RDF process' post. That way you can easily update it with the latest changes without downloading the files that did not change.

- The other way is to download a .tar.gz file from the link at the bottom of the 'browse' page. Almost all third-party zip tools (winzip, winrar etc) can open these files.

If the group feels that I need to have intermediate releases in zip format (like 1.31_beta1) then can do that too...

xnappo

[EDIT]
P.S. Here is own problem:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/
RDF IS an extension for some sort of XML file

Post by **mathdon** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:55 am

xnappo wrote:If the group feels that I need to have intermediate releases in zip format (like 1.31_beta1) then can do that too...

No need, I was just asking what was currently possible. However, what I found for the files that I downloaded from the Beta area was that they were identical to the ones in the release. Was there any way I should have been able to tell that, without downloading and comparing them? More generally, is there a way of seeing which files in the Beta area are actually later versions than in the release? I had naively assumed that the Beta area only contained files changed from the release, but I think now that it must contain all latest versions, whether they have changed from the last release or not.

As for the missing files that I mentioned, I've gone the whole hog - installed TortoiseSVN and uploaded them myself. I can now see them in the Beta area, but all the others have a log entry against them. I didn't see any opportunity to add a log entry, such as "New RDF", when I did the "commit". Was I missing something?
_______________
Graham

xnappo · Post by **xnappo** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:03 am

mathdon wrote: No need, I was just asking what was currently possible. However, what I found for the files that I downloaded from the Beta area was that they were identical to the ones in the release. Was there any way I should have been able to tell that, without downloading and comparing them?

Yes - if the file in the beta area had a version higher than '812' then it is newer than what was in the release. This is, of course, not obvious. This revision control tool works in a way that takes some getting used to. Basically any time a file is changed it gets the next available number for the whole collection of files. So after I did a release which happened to be at version '812', the next file that gets changed with get '813'.

mathdon wrote: As for the missing files that I mentioned, I've gone the whole hog - installed TortoiseSVN and uploaded them myself. I can now see them in the Beta area, but all the others have a log entry against them. I didn't see any opportunity to add a log entry, such as "New RDF", when I did the "commit". Was I missing something?

Glad you got it set up! Hmm, there definitely should have been a box for a comment when you did the 'commit'....

xnappo
_______________
Graham[/quote]

Post by **The Robman** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:03 am

mathdon wrote:I had naively assumed that the Beta area only contained files changed from the release

That would have been my assumption too, and that's certainly how we used to do it. In other words, once an RDF moved from beta to the official release, it was deleted from the beta folder.

I would hope that that would be the case with the sorceforge versions too.

xnappo · Post by **xnappo** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:10 am

The Robman wrote:
mathdon wrote:I had naively assumed that the Beta area only contained files changed from the release
That would have been my assumption too, and that's certainly how we used to do it. In other words, once an RDF moved from beta to the official release, it was deleted from the beta folder.

I would hope that that would be the case with the sorceforge versions too.

I don't see anyway to do that with the definition I am using now for Beta - which in revision control terms is really 'Latest' - the latest version of all the files.

I could do it if I purposefully did a test release, but I don't really think there is a need. Consider the 'Development' area to be the old test area, and beta to be the stuff that will be in the next release... We can rename if that is confusing.

xnappo

Post by **The Robman** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:41 am

xnappo wrote:Consider the 'Development' area to be the old test area, and beta to be the stuff that will be in the next release.

That works for me. Can you add comments to help make that point (wherever you think they're needed).

gfb107 · Post by **gfb107** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:57 am

A lot of projects use the term unstable when referring to the development version, which contains all the latest changes to the released version. I kind of like that term, because it conveys the ideas that

It is not just a delta, but a complete version
It is the latest
It might be broken
Changes could happen any time.

Post by **mathdon** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:04 pm

xnappo wrote:Hmm, there definitely should have been a box for a comment when you did the 'commit'....

Then I presume it was there but I didn't realise its significance. I'll look more carefully next time, now that I know it is something that appears on the Sourceforge page.

If it is possible to rename the Beta area as the Latest area (or something similar) then I think it would be helpful. Beta is definitely misleading when all the files in it are either the current release or are approved for release.
_____________
Graham

xnappo · Post by **xnappo** » Thu Jun 10, 2010 12:21 pm

I renamed the links. Let me know there are any tweaks needed...

Thanks,
xnappo