Concerning updater scripts

[admin]

A note from the developer

I'd like to discourage the development and publication of updater scripts that automate updating to BETA versions. Automating this is fundamentally against the idea of BETA versions and potentially dangerous to the users of such scripts.

So, please if your must do updater scripts, then ONLY for official releases!

Thanks,
Don

[highend]

As a user I really want to be able to update to a new beta version...

We report bugs / problems and most of them get fixed with the next beta and it makes sense for those that are affected by those bugs, that they don't wait for the next official release.

What makes sense:
A variable (in the config file) that is by default set to 0 = only show / update to official releases
and when switched to 1 = include beta releases to allow users to get everything out of the script.

[admin]

As a user I really want to be able to update to a new beta version...

You can do that without a script. The point is automation.

Well, I know I cannot stop you anyway. But at least I warned you. If a user gets harmed the script author will be made responsible.

[highend]

The point is automation.

Yeah, but none of the newer updater scripts updates to a new beta automatically. You still have to click on the correct button to do it.
So everybody should be aware of what he's doing...

[nas8e9]

@admin: Does your objection apply to scripts which *first* show the changelog before updating?

[Marco]

Don,
a script saves a couple of clicks and d'n'd's, but it fundamentally requires to be triggered by a human first. There's nothing against the concept of beta: if someone wants the very last version available of a software is free to do so, it's his will and his action. I join nas8e9's question: is reading the changelog the point of the problem?

[admin]

@admin: Does your objection apply to scripts which *first* show the changelog before updating?

That's the minimum.

But the script relies on a change log (resp. forum post) format that might change at any point. E.g. one day I could add a special warning ("Don't run this BETA on Win7 or your system will be wiped!") in a special format that the script does not see.

[serendipity]

@admin: Does your objection apply to scripts which *first* show the changelog before updating?

That's the minimum.

But the script relies on a change log (resp. forum post) format that might change at any point. E.g. one day I could add a special warning ("Don't run this BETA on Win7 or your system will be wiped!") in a special format that the script does not see.

OK, understand your concern.
Would you rather prefer we embed your unchanged beta change log page directly in the script?
That way users see the exact same content before updating.

[admin]

Well, I don't have time for this anymore. I pointed out that BETA versions should not be updated automatically but only manually directly from the one place in the user forum that I designated for this.

Now you are free to do what you want.

PS: Of course, those updater scripts as such are cool and it's great that you write and share them! (just not for BETA versions)

[serendipity]

Well, I don't have time for this anymore. I pointed out that BETA versions should not be updated automatically but only manually directly from the one place in the user forum that I designated for this.

Now you are free to do what you want.

PS: Of course, those updater scripts as such are cool and it's great that you write and share them! (just not for BETA versions)

OK, thanks.

[PeterH]

It seems to me that for people reading it here, i.e. in the beta forum, only automating updates to "productive" versions would mean to automate 10% and leave 90% of the updates to be done manually.

I'm not sure that automating just these 10% would make sense?

[j_c_hallgren]

It seems to me that for people reading it here, i.e. in the beta forum, only automating updates to "productive" versions would mean to automate 10% and leave 90% of the updates to be done manually.

I'm not sure that automating just these 10% would make sense?

Well, not having used these scripts but reading the threads, it seems that none of these are 100% automated but rather a way to make manual updates much easier...

The user still has to invoke the script, right? So that alone gives user the ability to decide what updates to apply and when...so I don't quite follow Don's concern in OP here...

[serendipity]

It seems to me that for people reading it here, i.e. in the beta forum, only automating updates to "productive" versions would mean to automate 10% and leave 90% of the updates to be done manually.

I'm not sure that automating just these 10% would make sense?

Well, not having used these scripts but reading the threads, it seems that none of these are 100% automated but rather a way to make manual updates much easier...

The user still has to invoke the script, right? So that alone gives user the ability to decide what updates to apply and when...so I don't quite follow Don's concern in OP here...

Current updater scripts use html tags, regexp etc to read beta page, but if Don changes the page format to something else then it is possible that users will miss something very important.
His concern is users should update to beta only after they've read the complete (unaltered) beta change log.

[TheQwerty]

Don, are you at all open to discussing a compromise on this?


I understand the concerns about scripts not showing the full change log and all disclaimers.
I think if you were willing to amend your update process slightly we could arrive at a solution that satisfies and eases the burden on both you and beta users.

My own disclaimer: Obviously I'm not aware of what your actual process is so I'm not sure how disruptive this might be. Please forgive me my ignorance.


The problem with the scripts we've provided are they heavily rely on scraping the HTML from the forum, which is a messy and finicky thing that is prone to breaking.

Would you be willing to keep a file (History-Beta.txt) beside the existing History.txt, which would be identical in all ways except it would include the changes since the last stable release?

Any warnings and disclaimers could (and should) be included in this file right below the version lines.


The format of this file is pretty well defined already and because it is plain-text the parsing needed by scripts become much less complicated.


The fact, as you acknowledged, is that these scripts will continue to exist as long as you provide betas and XY does not handle the updating itself.

Though the frequency of updates is loved by many and garners you much respect, it becomes a hassle to check the forum then download and install a new beta on an almost daily basis for those of us that want to help you create the best product.

"Help [us] help you!"

[admin]

Sorry, but not possible. Simply not enough time.