IR v8.01 wish list

[The Robman]

Generally speaking, when we introduce a new version of a JP1 tool, we just increment the sub-release number by 1, look at the history of KM and RM and for the most part, IR. I do see that the 6.00 series incremented in 5s, but I don't recall why that was.

I certainly don't object to you jumping to 10 if you like as IR is your baby now, I was just voicing my preference which would be to increment it by 1.

[mathdon]

Generally speaking, when we introduce a new version of a JP1 tool, we just increment the sub-release number by 1, look at the history of KM and RM ...

Indeed you do. I don't use KM, but this policy for RM always leaves me wondering whether the update is worth bothering with. I'm still on RM1.88, for instance, while the current version is RM1.93.

I really don't want users to wait, say, for IR8.04 before upgrading from IR8.00, as they will have a very long wait and the enhancements in IR8.01 are substantial and will be worthwhile for almost all users. So as you don't object - and thanks for that, IR may be temporarily my baby but the whole of JP1 is permanently your baby - I will go along with changing the version number to IR8.10.
____________________
Graham

[vickyg2003]

When I first encountered JP1 in the Yahoo days, it was "beaten" into my head that any time I had any problems with the software I should check for upgrades. Those early lessons have served me well. Everytime I ever have problems, its always been fixed by downloading the lastest verison. The developers were always way ahead of me.

Now years later, the software is so much more stable, that that warning is not issued on a regular basis, but I think it should be. User's should ALWAYS check to see if they have the latest and greatest tools, no matter what the version number is.

ANY revision number is important to note.

[The Robman]

Now that I see WHY you want to jump ahead, I think you may be disappointed to find that it doesn't have the desired effect. Those of us that use JP1 on a regular basis (ie, mainly the experts) are going to grab the latest version of everything no matter what the version number is, and the people that don't use it regularly won't.

Don't be surprised when you see a post from someone looking for help with an issue and they quote that they're using IR 6.15.

For many people, if the current version is working, they're not necessarily in a rush to get the latest version. So, skipping numbers won't make them upgrade quicker, it'll just make it a bit more confusing to those of us that do use the tools everyday.

[mathdon]

When I first encountered JP1 in the Yahoo days, it was "beaten" into my head that any time I had any problems with the software I should check for upgrades.

Sure, that is the rule with any software. I'm not thinking of problems, I'm thinking of new features that users may find useful. With that, I think there is some benefit in distinguishing between a minor revision and the substantial addition of new features.

Don't be surprised when you see a post from someone looking for help with an issue and they quote that they're using IR 6.15.

Point taken - I saw that very recently!

OK, I will think more about this before deciding.
_________________
Graham

[vickyg2003]

When I first encountered JP1 in the Yahoo days, it was "beaten" into my head that any time I had any problems with the software I should check for upgrades.

Sure, that is the rule with any software.

Well yeah, you know that, you're a developer. But the user don't seem to get that.

I'm not thinking of problems, I'm thinking of new features that users may find useful.

I think the most of the user's are of the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" mentality. The forum regular's are going to down your release no matter what the number. But of the 587 people that have downloaded your IR8, my guess is 500 of them are newbies, and 400 of them will stick will stick with IR800 for 3 or more years because they won't be back until they get new equipment. Your target primary user's will be forum regulars and newbies.

[mathdon]

I threw this out there before, but what to you think of some upload/download animation besides the pseudo LED? I initially thought a progress bar or some other graphic, but now I'm thinking a simple hourglass cursor or some blinking text may be enough.

This is weird. I'm almost ready to post an IR8.01 Beta (yes, Rob and Vicky, I've decided to stick to version number 8.01 ) but thought I would put in that hourglass cursor on upload/download as the simplest animation. What did I find? It's already there, it works, but I (and presumably you too) just haven't noticed it!

I won't delay the Beta version over this but will consider something more noticeable before final release if it is felt there is a need for it.
________________
Graham

[mdavej]

I missed it completely . Good to know most of the code is already there to drive something less subtle. Thanks again for all your hard work.

[unclemiltie]

I'll add my two cents on the versioning...

On the extenders that I've been writing that have version support, I have been using .0x as a "minor" revision, some odd error that I fixed that really has no impact on anyone except maybe someone who found an odd bug. Changes to the RDF's, other minor things

I've been using .x0 as indicating something that is of substance but the extender hasn't changed in function. A bug that would impact everyone who is using the extender, etc.

I've been using x.0 as a major change, this will generally require people rebuild their extender configuration since keys have moved, something really new has been added, etc. I did this on the Atlas when I moved the keysets and moved all of the code around and moved the special protocols into the hidden area. The key here is that this requires someone using the extender to think about what they're doing, it's not a simple upgrade.


You have to also think about how many digits you have between 0 and 9 when you use this kind of scheme. Instead of 99 incremental releases between majors, you have many, many fewer. But this hasn't been an issue for me and the extenders.

(and yes, before anyone replies, I do owe a minor update on the Atlas extenders to fix an RDF issue. it's on my list!)

[mathdon]

Thanks, Uncle Miltie, for your two cents worth. I too think of the version numbering hierarchically. The compiler uses Major version, Minor version, Revision number and Build number. This is the number you see if you right-click the file and select Properties/Details. For IR8.01 Dev Build 2 it is 8.0.1.2. For a release, my view is that the Build is dropped - that is for development versions - and the second dot removed. So that makes the change from 8.00 to 8.01 be a Revision, whereas my view of the extent of the changes is that it is a Major Version change.

I didn't thinik anyone would stand the next version being 9.00 , as a change in Major Version seems to have represented a handover of developer, but was taken aback by there being any disquiet with it being 8.10. But there was, and I don't want this to be a controversial issue, so I've decided to go along with leaving it at 8.01. I see that a change at this stage could be confusing, as the "wish list" has called it 8.01 from the beginning, but all the muiltiselect stuff has involved a substantial reorganisation of the code with a lot of time and effort on my part, all for a mere ".01". A bit sad, really.
________________
Graham

[Capn Trips]

Graham,

As has been previously stated, the casual user doesn't undestand and it doesn't matter to him/her, while the rest of us who frequent here and try to keep constantly up-to-date certainly do not undervalue your "1¢" change to the extender.

We assign to it an inflated value of at LEAST a dime!

(Just call me the master of self-esteem)

[mathdon]

I have another suggestion for something that would save me a lot of time. I'd like two new buttons on the Learned Signals tab.

1) Code Summary
This button would bring up a reduced section of the Summary file, which just shows the codes for the learned signals.

2) Times Summary
This button would bring up a reduced section of the Summary file, which just shows the raw data for the learned signals.

By all means, come up with different labels for the buttons if you like.

Rob, I've done this, but as I think it is a rather specialized interest I've put these on the right-click menu of the learned signals listbox rather than as new buttons. Is this OK?
_________________
Graham

[The Robman]

Rob, I've done this, but as I think it is a rather specialized interest I've put these on the right-click menu of the learned signals listbox rather than as new buttons. Is this OK?

While I agree that it may be specialized, it's something that I have to do A LOT in order to create new upgrades for people (and it sounds like the Capn will be using them too), so I would definitely prefer buttons to a right-click menu option, and there's certainly enough real-estate there to do it (to the left of EDIT, or to the right of DELETE ALL).

If you think most people won't want to see these buttons, how about only showing the buttons when the "Force Learned Timings" advanced menu option is selected.

[mathdon]

I've put these on the right-click menu of the learned signals listbox rather than as new buttons. Is this OK?

... I would definitely prefer buttons to a right-click menu option, and there's certainly enough real-estate there to do it (to the left of EDIT, or to the right of DELETE ALL).

If you think most people won't want to see these buttons, how about only showing the buttons when the "Force Learned Timings" advanced menu option is selected.

I do think most people won't want to see them, but I'm happy with your compromise. I've done this, so these summary extracts are available at any time through the right-click menu, and also through new buttons when "Force Learned Timings" is selected.
_______________
Graham

[The Robman]

Great, when do we get to play with this new version? I'm going to be offline the rest of the weekend, but I'd like to play with the prototype as soon as possible.