Add info about TC7.57 into history.txt of TC8

umbra · Post by *umbra » 2012-05-20, 08:04 UTC

If you check history.txt included with TC8, there is no record of TC7.57. I know that those versions were developed in parallel. But something similar happened with versions 6.54 and 7 and both are included.

Post by *ghisler(Author) » 2012-05-20, 16:30 UTC

Sorry, TC 7.57 and TC 8 are too much mixed together to be put in a common timeline.

umbra · Post by *umbra » 2012-05-21, 10:44 UTC

I understand that. But you could at least mention it. Something like:

09.03.12 Release Total Commander 7.57a final
09.03.12 Fixed: Numerous bugfixes backported from TC 8.0

And put it between beta 23 and 24. Right now, it's like that version never existed.

Post by *ghisler(Author) » 2012-05-21, 13:36 UTC

Unfortuantely the 9.3.2012 is in the middle of the bugfixes of another beta version...

Flint · Post by *Flint » 2012-05-21, 14:06 UTC

ghisler(Author) wrote:Unfortuantely the 9.3.2012 is in the middle of the bugfixes of another beta version...

A small note about parallel development would be enough to resolve the possible confusion.

Post by *ghisler(Author) » 2012-05-22, 10:42 UTC

But where in the history.txt would you put it? Putting it in the middle of public beta 23 would be confusing because it would split its bug fixes in two. Placing it above or below public beta 23 would be confusing too, because the timestamp would be out of sequence.

MaxX · Post by *MaxX » 2012-05-22, 10:49 UTC

2ghisler(Author)
So... just put it above 7.56a.

Flint · Post by *Flint » 2012-05-22, 11:02 UTC

MaxX wrote:just put it above 7.56a.

I second that. I think, something like the following would look well enough (the beta-versions are skipped for brevity):

xx.xx.xx Release Total Commander 8.0 final (32/64)
<items>

…

16.09.11 Release Total Commander 8.0 public beta 1 (32/64)
<items>

NOTE: TC versions 7.57(a) were developed in parallel with development of version 8.0 and contain mostly backports; therefore they are dated after the beginning of the 8.0 development cycle.

09.03.12 Release Total Commander 7.57a final
<items>

24.02.12 Release Total Commander 7.57 final
<items>

17.12.10 Release Total Commander 7.56a final
<items>

Sir_SiLvA · Post by *Sir_SiLvA » 2012-05-22, 11:33 UTC

Sorry but Id say leave it as it is and dont put 7.57 in the history of 8.
I know Im the only one but I said from the beginning the relase of 7.57 was a bad idea and a waste of time...

Horst.Epp · Post by *Horst.Epp » 2012-05-22, 13:04 UTC

Sir_SiLvA wrote:Sorry but Id say leave it as it is and dont put 7.57 in the history of 8.
I know Im the only one but I said from the beginning the relase of 7.57 was a bad idea and a waste of time...

You are not the only one, I agree with you.

No one using TC 8 is interested on the history of any 7.x version in the middle of all changes of the version 8.

Post by *Hacker » 2012-05-22, 15:02 UTC

I agree with MaxX and Flint - put it above 7.56a with a short explanation.

Roman

umbra · Post by *umbra » 2012-05-22, 17:14 UTC

Hmm, looks like I've triggered a much bigger discussion than I expected. Anyway, I still think, there should be at least some mention of 7.57 in history.txt - it really doesn't matter where exactly.

karlchen · Post by *karlchen » 2012-05-24, 22:28 UTC

Hacker wrote:I agree with MaxX and Flint - put it above 7.56a with a short explanation.

Support for this suggestion from my side.

By the way, the question whether the process of backporting bugfixes from various 8.0 beta releases into 7.57 and 7.57a can be presented in the right chronological order in a flat text file or not - this would not be a problem in case the file had at least two columns e.g. - is absolutely unrelated to the question whether backporting of bugfixes into v7.57 and v7.57a was a reasonable thing to do.

Karl