Re: RFC: Update wizard

Dave Page wrote:
>>We have three areas to update:
>>- The program itself. We will just notify the user that
>>there's something new he might be interested in (depending on
>>beta/release).
>
>
> An option to download/install would be nice. That would require a
> separate program on Windows of course to update the main executable.

Apart from packaging conflicts, IMHO it's not worth it. Pointing to the
website should be sufficient.

>>- the current language. A word count can be used as version.
>>Automatic download/installation possible.
>
>
> That won't necessarily pick up typos of course. Can we utilise CVS for
> this somehow, and use it's built in version numbering?

Not directly. The binaries would be corrupted. In the rare case of typo
fixes without count change the count could be increased manually. It's a
kind of version number anyway. We could use the date too.

> That'll even allow segregation of major version updates using branch version numbers.

We don't need that. A newer language file also covers previous versions.

> Have you thought about documentation updates?

Um, no. No problem really, because we already can load the doc from a
zip. Consequently, we should stop distributing single files, and
distribute the zip only.

>>Questions:
>>- How to inform the user about possible updates? MsgBox?
>>Toolbar button showing enabled? Update check will be
>>performed asynchronously, so it might pop up in the middle of
>>something.
>
>
> Status bar message with flashing icon?

Annoying, if you don't want to update. Maybe non-flashing.
Or toolbar button, which changes appearance if download is available.
The download dlg should be accessible even if no update was
automatically detected, to enable manual triggered updates.

>
>>- We could post some statistical data about the pga
>>installation (OS/version/backend versions/server count/???)
>>to get a little feedback; how to collect these?
>
>
> I'd love to see this sort of info, *however*, I have little doubt the
> privacy advocates would have something to say about it. I would be
> *very* wary of adding such a feature.

lets discuss this separately.

Regards,
Andreas