moderated Not getting update messages, timeouts #install


JP Tucson, AZ <samcat88az@...>
 

To Joe, Bill & wsjtx crew,

For the second time in a row, I did NOT get a message from JOE about the new RC release being released.
Don't know if it wasn't sent at all, or...?

Only knew about new release from seeing it here from another post on the groups.io


A general question about the RC releases...  (and not completely unrelated to the above)...
Why do you guys put a dated kill switch on the RC's at all, or at least so short?  This rc4 only good for like a bit over a week...
It seems like if say, you put out a new GA release & it's bad (like 2.2.2 was with the <eh> header error), that at least we could revert back to the previous RC until a correction is made.
Also, lets say one or more of the team becomes ill and can't make the update, we are dead in the water unless we jump back now at least 6 months or more...


Bill Somerville
 

On 25/01/2021 19:03, JP Tucson, AZ wrote:
To Joe, Bill & wsjtx crew,

For the second time in a row, I did NOT get a message from JOE about the new RC release being released.
Don't know if it wasn't sent at all, or...?

Only knew about new release from seeing it here from another post on the groups.io


A general question about the RC releases...  (and not completely unrelated to the above)...
Why do you guys put a dated kill switch on the RC's at all, or at least so short?  This rc4 only good for like a bit over a week...
It seems like if say, you put out a new GA release & it's bad (like 2.2.2 was with the <eh> header error), that at least we could revert back to the previous RC until a correction is made.
Also, lets say one or more of the team becomes ill and can't make the update, we are dead in the water unless we jump back now at least 6 months or more...
John,

we only have resources and inclination to support the current General Availability release and any current Release Candidate. Expiry dates are placed on RC releases to avoid unwanted queries on outdated software. TBH we would prefer expiry dates on GA releases too, but as you state sometime unforeseen issues arise that require some users to revert to a prior GA release.

Your example of the ADIF header issue is a very poor one as it is only occurs the first time the log file is created, albeit annoying as it hits first time users, but it is easily rectified by a trivial edit and there's no need to revert to an earlier version.

If there were a "shop-stopper" issue with a GA release, that affected large numbers of users, we would get a new point release out pretty quickly.

Joe's release announcement to this list may be stuck in moderation as he may not have added a hash tag. It was only this Morning, it may be a few hours before it lands on the group.

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Bill Somerville
 

On 25/01/2021 19:13, Bill Somerville wrote:
On 25/01/2021 19:03, JP Tucson, AZ wrote:
To Joe, Bill & wsjtx crew,

For the second time in a row, I did NOT get a message from JOE about the new RC release being released.
Don't know if it wasn't sent at all, or...?

Only knew about new release from seeing it here from another post on the groups.io


A general question about the RC releases...  (and not completely unrelated to the above)...
Why do you guys put a dated kill switch on the RC's at all, or at least so short?  This rc4 only good for like a bit over a week...
It seems like if say, you put out a new GA release & it's bad (like 2.2.2 was with the <eh> header error), that at least we could revert back to the previous RC until a correction is made.
Also, lets say one or more of the team becomes ill and can't make the update, we are dead in the water unless we jump back now at least 6 months or more...

John,

we only have resources and inclination to support the current General Availability release and any current Release Candidate. Expiry dates are placed on RC releases to avoid unwanted queries on outdated software. TBH we would prefer expiry dates on GA releases too, but as you state sometime unforeseen issues arise that require some users to revert to a prior GA release.

Your example of the ADIF header issue is a very poor one as it is only occurs the first time the log file is created, albeit annoying as it hits first time users, but it is easily rectified by a trivial edit and there's no need to revert to an earlier version.

If there were a "shop-stopper" issue with a GA release, that affected large numbers of users, we would get a new point release out pretty quickly.

Joe's release announcement to this list may be stuck in moderation as he may not have added a hash tag. It was only this Morning, it may be a few hours before it lands on the group.

73
Bill
G4WJS.

John and all

here is Joe's WSJT-X v2.3.0 RC4 announcement on the SourceForge wsjt-devel list for reference:

https://sourceforge.net/p/wsjt/mailman/message/37204989/

73
Bill
G4WJS.


Alan G4ZFQ
 

Why do you guys put a dated kill switch on the RC's at all, or at least so short?
"Candidate releases are intended for beta testers: individuals interested in testing the program's new features and providing feedback "

As Bill will say the RCs are not intended for regular use, just for testing.
We are grateful that improvements are being made.
If you want to test then accept the terms or stick with the general release until a new one comes along.

73 Alan G4ZFQ