|
|
Post by Robert on May 6, 2023 10:48:53 GMT -5
Currently, the Beta version of SPFLite is in the General Board and News topic, under Latest Beta under V3.0.23xxx as an attachment.
This is a quick and convenient way to put out a beta. However, as an attachment, only logged-in users can access it. As desirable as it might be to have all SPFLite users register on the forum, it seems clear the vast majority do not. By storing beta versions as attachments to a forum post, a very large segment of the user population is blocked from testing betas.
The suggestion is to migrate beta versions to the main spflite.com site, where downloads of the official releases is done, along with the explanatory notes that accompany each beta on the forum right now.
The same thought could apply to other significant files on the forum, like macros, samples, etc. are located. But, treating betas this way is by far the most important use of this concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by George on May 6, 2023 14:32:28 GMT -5
Robert: Not a bad idea, but I just can't get the forum to generate a link to a website file.
Also, adding files to the website Download page is not trivial, it's magnitude more involved than a quick post on the forum. For example, fire up Hnd, edit the website text, add links to the potential downloads on the Download page, re-build the website, upload the website, upload the various files (Beta versions etc.)
Quite simply - WAY more work.
As well for non members, for Betas, if they COULD download them, they still can't contribute questions, comments etc. since posting is restricted to members. Frankly, I'm not sure why more 'guests' don't register, it's painless, costs nothing, and they don't get inundated in emails.
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert on May 6, 2023 15:53:09 GMT -5
It is true that non-members couldn't get the other things you mention. But, if they wanted *those* things badly enough, that could be an incentive to become one. You could remind them of that.
I don't want to over-elaborate a suggestion, but I believe there are some things that could be done to eliminate most of the extra work you mention.
1. The forum could contain a link to the SPFLite.com web site.
2. The SPFLite web site would contain a fixed link to "THE" beta site. That is, there would only be one beta link, and it would always have the most recent one.
3. Non-members would still be able to contribute, by using email. To make that email easier for non-members, you would put up two lines of text, which would look like this:
support@SPFLite.com
RE: Beta 3.0.23.122 -- or whatever the version is --
All they would have to do is cut and paste into an email and add comments.
That's the idea.
There wouldn't be "potential download links". There is no need to overcomplicate things. You don't have to support all possible "extra" files, only the beta.
That is my two cents worth. I won't push any further on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by George on May 7, 2023 9:58:02 GMT -5
Robert: After a lot of experimenting, the best I can do with the current forum software from ProBoards is to add a link to the file on my GDrive. I know you don't like Google anything, but it DOES work.
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert on May 7, 2023 11:03:14 GMT -5
I tested the link to the GDrive. No, not a big fan of Google, but it does work. I did see two issues.
1. I had to get past three different warnings about downloading an EXE. That may scare off some some users. I scared me, and I am the one that asked for it.
2. There is (now) no indication, anywhere, what the version of the beta is. Even your sample message in the forum is out of date (it says 122 when it's really 124) and you just added it today.
If this is going to end up being the only way a beta is distributed, it might be better to create a "beta zip" file. That way, you would still have one constant name (the SPFLite.Beta.whatever.ZIP) but inside it, you could have an SPFLite EXE with a name like you have been using, like SPFLite2.3.0.23122.exe. You could also include a README.TXT that included the beta version number, when it was created, and what was fixed or changed in the beta. Perhaps you could even rename the EXE to EXX or something to silence all the warnings. The README would also have a standard blurb you'd add to every README that explained how to rename and install the EXE, you know, whatever was needed. It probably wouldn't need more than a couple of lines.
So, the link mechanism does in fact work, it just needs a little tweaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert on May 7, 2023 11:30:56 GMT -5
Perhaps the EXE name could be changed (for instance) from
SPFLite2.3.0.23122.exe
to
SPFLite2.3.0.23122.exe.REMOVE
That way it would real obvious how to fix the name.
|
|
|
|
Post by George on May 7, 2023 14:12:55 GMT -5
Robert: I've changed it again based on comments, so a) version id there, and b) members still have the simple version of download.
So, non-members have a tougher path, maybe that's more encouragement to become members.
Building README's and making ZIPs - not yet, let's see how the latest goes.
George
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert on May 7, 2023 15:16:33 GMT -5
I agree, this should be user driven. Non-members will have some more work to do, but the way you did it with member vs. non-member access is a good start. Now, no one is left out. Let users speak up as to how they like it or if they need adjustments.
Thank you for your assistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by George on May 8, 2023 9:02:27 GMT -5
Romert: Just tested - adding .remove to a filename doesn't fool Google, it still recognizes it as an executable. Only way I've found to beat it is to rename the extension, and then double ZIP it. Way too painful unless you're desperate.
George
|
|
