Re: RFC: Update wizard

Dave Page wrote:
>>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.
>
>
> Why would binaries be corrupted?

CVS would change the file to insert the version, which would probably
corrupt the binary structure.
>
>
>>We don't need that. A newer language file also covers
>>previous versions.
>
>
> Does it? You mean, if we remove strings from the source, they remain in
> the po files after a merge?
Right, that's what pgadmin3-release.pot is good for. We rarely remove
strings, so this seems reasonable.
>
>>>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.
>
>
> In that case then, why distribute the languages seperately?

I don't understand the question. We *do* distribute the languages
packaged, no?
>
>
> As I also suggested though, there should be an option to turn off
> auto-checking on the options dialogue. But I could live with non
> flashing.

Disabling autocheck and not updating immediately are different things.
>
>>Or toolbar button, which changes appearance if download is available.
>
> No, I don't think we should use the tool bar. It's there to allow the
> user to control the application, not to provide feedback.

Every 60 days (e.g.) updates are checked, and a feedback is given to the
user. After that, the user might decide to upgrade immediately, or do it
later.
Statusbar icon seems the best solution (but it will need some effort;
tooltip and doubleclick on that icon must be supported)

Regards,
Andreas