http://blog.logos.com/archives/2010/05/logos_40c_is_now_available.html
we have a three dimensional matrix of possibilities How about this? Version you are running Update channel Version you will receive* Stable Release Candidate Beta Standard Stable Yes Default Yes Beta Yes Yes Yes Release Candidate Stable Yes Default Yes Beta Yes Yes Yes Beta Stable Yes Default Yes Yes Yes Beta Yes Yes Yes Note: You will always receive the latest version, by version number, not by date. So If you are running 4.0d beta 3 in June, you won't receive 4.0c SR2 in July, regardless of any of your settings here.
we have a three dimensional matrix of possibilities
How about this?
Version you are running
Update channel
Version you will receive*
Stable
Release Candidate
Beta
Standard
Yes
Default
Note: You will always receive the latest version, by version number, not by date. So If you are running 4.0d beta 3 in June, you won't receive 4.0c SR2 in July, regardless of any of your settings here.
Mark, this would be a great chart to add to the Update Channels wiki page. Would you be OK with that? Either add it yourself or give us the thumbs up. And again, I've never fully understood this stuff so I'd want Bradley to review it. But I think this chart is easier to understand than the other one that's currently there, but we should use both.
Rosie,
I realised there was no wiki page about the beta program at all, so I created one. It took me rather longer than I anticipated, so if you're able to add my table to the other Wiki page, that would be great.
Thanks,
Mark, this would be a great chart to add to the Update Channels wiki page.
The chart is inconsistent with Kevin's description and would need to be updated as below to better indicate the behaviour to be expected.
It is better to state that a beta installation cannot be updated to a Standard version when it can receive an RC, and if you want to prevent further betas then set the channel to Stable! Conversely, if you have a Standard (Std) installation you will not receive a beta version unless you set the channel to Beta.
Version you will receive
Std
No
YesNo
The chart is inconsistent with Kevin's description and would need to be updated as below to better indicate the behaviour to be expected. It is better to state that a beta installation cannot be updated to a Standard version when it can receive an RC, and if you want to prevent further betas then set the channel to Stable! Conversely, if you have a Standard (Std) installation you will not receive a beta version unless you set the channel to Beta.
Dave, good catch
I'm in the process of encoding the chart for the wiki, I will make the changes and upload it to the page when done.
EDIT: Dave, there's at least one error in your chart, if you set the update channel to Beta while running a Standard installation, you will get an update to the Beta. This chart depends on whether or not there is a higher version number published on the RSS feed.
EDIT: Dave, there's at least one error in your chart, if you set the update channel to Beta while running a Standard installation, you will get an update to the Beta.
I think the chart indicates that .....?
Here is my attempt to improve Mark's chart
What you see is a screen grab from a not-published preview from encoding the chart wiki. Creating a table like this on the wiki was a little bit harder than I thought! In it I distinguished between a Gold release and the SRs because they are released while a Beta cycle is ongoing. I inserted a few "footnotes" in an attempt to explain some oddities.
Did I succeed? Mark, should I upload this to your page and the one I started or did I over-complicate it?
My, isn't this complicated?
Kevin, I think the caveats you'd added to the chart help make it precise, though I'm not sure your logic regarding what happens when you have the update channel to beta and you are running the Gold/SR version. Thinking about it, I'd put No, Yes, Yes, Yes across that row. For example, imagine that tomorrow Logos release 4.0c SR1. I presume all of us on the beta channel will receive it (though it's never happened so we can't be sure). You could add footnote 1 to the SR column here.
I was also a bit confused by your footnote (2). Is this better?
Technically users on the beta channel do not receive notification of the gold release. However, the Gold release is identical to the final Release Candidate which they do receive.
I'm not sure your logic regarding what happens when you have the update channel to beta and you are running the Gold/SR version. Thinking about it, I'd put No, Yes, Yes, Yes across that row. For example, imagine that tomorrow Logos release 4.0c SR1. I presume all of us on the beta channel will receive it (though it's never happened so we can't be sure). You could add footnote 1 to the SR column here.
Good point. I was operating under the assumption that SR updates would only be published on the Stable RSS feed. If SR1 came about before the next beta cycle I can see why Logos would probably push it out on the Beta feed too. I'll go ahead and change the Yes/No and move the footnote. We can always change it back if this situation arises and Logos doesn't push the SR out over the Beta feed.
I was also a bit confused by your footnote (2). Is this better? Technically users on the beta channel do not receive notification of the gold release. However, the Gold release is identical to the final Release Candidate which they do receive.
Bradley said "However, when RC 2 (or RC 3 or RC 4...) is deemed stable enough to release, it will be published to the stable channel (as well as the beta channel). All 4.0b versions (beta or RC) will then automatically update themselves to it" (http://community.logos.com/forums/p/9459/75479.aspx#75479 ) I interpreted his words as saying that the Beta RSS feed publishes the Gold release even though it is the same as the final RC. Seeing how this is a really fine (and pointless) distinction, it's probably best to adopt your wording.
Ok, I'll go ahead and upload this complex bit of code to the wiki and we can rework it when Bradley pops up to tell us we're all wrong [;)]
It was just auto updated in both desktop & laptop as L4c. It must be the gold release. Now I am waiting until indexing completes to see how gold it is in increased performance.
Warren Dane
P.S. It was a 914.3MB download. It is taking a very long time to index - each time I check the completion time is getting longer. Wonder if some or many resources were also updated based on new coding? Not being familiar with the L4c beta process I can only guess if updating some resources was needed as well.
Most of this download would be the new Reverse Interlinear files to enable the old-style RI display.
Yes some resources were updated, including the addition of the NIV NT Rev Int. (!).
The indexer's time estimate is notoriously inaccurate. The time is based on the current resources size and the number of resources left. So if it happens to be indexing a very large resource, it's going to show a very high number. If the next resource is bigger, that number will grow. Then if the next resource is small, suddenly 2 hours becomes 20 minutes (or whatever), then it might jump up again.
Further, sometimes L4 only indexes the new resources, but when it sees that the index has a certain percentage that needs merging, it will do it automatically. You could be seeing that too. At this point there's no way to tell if you're reindexing everything, or only indexing the new stuff. The only way to deal with a massive reindex at an inconvenient time, is to rebuild your index at a time when you know you won't be using your computer - in other words, reindex preemptively.
I interpreted his words as saying that the Beta RSS feed publishes the Gold release even though it is the same as the final RC.
I did too, but I checked the RSS feed, and the release date of the file on the beta feed is different from the release date of the file of the stable feed, and the download locations are also different. But believe it or not, the version is RC4 on both feeds!
Ah, there's your problem, you verified information! This is not proper forum behavior; we are here for wild speculation. [;)]
Thanks for checking. The chart should be up on both wiki pages. Hopefully this effort will result in an easier time explaining these things when 4.0d goes gold.
Thanks Richard and Kevin. Appreciate the information. I am glad to have a fast enough machine that indexing does not slow enough to make study difficult. The general slowness of L4 is a nuisance, but does grow patience, and that's a good thing. I await (patiently) to see if L4c has improved the general slowness. (I have already followed the ideas in the forum & wiki to improve speed and it helped a little bit- but nowhere near the performance of L3.) I am hooked on L4 regardless.
Are you running on a 64 bit machine? L4 ran on a Win XP Pro with 1 GB RAM, but it is an entirely new and different program under Win 7 Pro 64 bit with 8 GB RAM
Ok, I'll go ahead and upload this complex bit of code to the wiki
It is unnecessarily complex as it indulges possibilities/presumptions rather than indicating expected behaviour. It will not achieve the objectives of the article.
What would you suggest should take it's place?
But believe it or not, the version is RC4 on both feeds!
Which doesn't mean the stable channel gets RC's - it is the Gold release (in all cases the true RC's were not published to stable). Nor should it be construed that Beta channel publishes Gold releases when they are RC's of the current beta. With 4.0c beta the only "gold" is 4.0b SR-2.
The revised chart that I published earlier - that had Std rather than Gold/SR.
I agree that the chart currently on the wiki is more complicated than the one your suggested earlier. However, I think that its complexity allows it to represent all possible permutations more accurately. For example, your chart stated that if a Beta installation had the update channel set to Stable, it wouldn't update to a standard installation. However, if I had decided I didn't have the time to download and run updates after 4.0c Beta 6 and so I ran the command "Set Update Channel to Stable." It would have updated to 4.0c Gold yesterday. Granted, this is an improbable situation, but IMHO the chart should allow for that possibility. Saying Yes with a footnote seems to be better than saying No.
However, as I was working on this I'm beginning to wonder of the chart should be removed from the Beta testing page and replaced with two simple narrative accounts of what will happen.
Narrative 1
The User installs Logos 4 using the Beta installer. It updates with each Beta release. When it installs RC-1 the program considers itself to be stable and ignores subsequent Release Candidates. When the final RC is declared golden the installation updates to that build.
Narrative 2
The User invokes "Set Update Channel to Beta" either to join the Beta or to insure that the program receives each RC. The program moves directly into the next beta cycle with Beta 1 unless the user revokes the previous command with "Set Update Channel to Default"
These are the two most likely scenarios, this entire discussion boils down to just a few sentences. If users want to understand the why, then the chart on the wiki "Update Channels" will give them all the information they could want.
Likely/expected scenarios would be more consistent with your wiki narrative.
Narrative 1 The User installs Logos 4 using the Beta installer. It updates with each Beta release. When it installs RC-1 the program considers itself to be stable and ignores subsequent Release Candidates. When the final RC is declared golden the installation updates to that build.
A user is not "likely" to ignore subsequent RC's! So they will use the beta installer or change channel to Beta as instructed in Release Notes. If an RC is declared "gold" the user then has a Standard installation with the possibility that the update channel is Beta! This leads to Narrative 2.
I agree with the first part. But remove the "complex" chart from both wiki pages and place the narratives in both articles.
Narrative 1 The User installs Logos 4 using the Beta installer. It updates with each Beta release. When it installs RC-1 the program considers itself to be stable and ignores subsequent Release Candidates. When the final RC is declared golden the installation updates to that build. Narrative 2 The User invokes "Set Update Channel to Beta" either to join the Beta or to insure that the program receives each RC. The program moves directly into the next beta cycle with Beta 1 unless the user revokes the previous command with "Set Update Channel to Default" These are the two most likely scenarios, this entire discussion boils down to just a few sentences. If users want to understand the why, then the chart on the wiki "Update Channels" will give them all the information they could want.
Narrative 1 seems like it never should be recommended. Who would ever want to get the beta releases and RC1 but not future RC's until the final RC is declared the golden release? RC's are just like beta releases to beta testers, in that we should still be hammering at them and reporting bugs all the way up until it goes gold. If users want to join the beta, shouldn't they always "Set Update Channel to Beta"?
Narrative 1 is actually what is recommended. Bradley recommends we don't change the update channel, or if we do to set it back to default after the beta is installed. Personally, that's not what I do, but it is what's recommended.
Dave, Rosie, and Mark,
This is an interesting, worldwide conversation. We're spread across the globe and I can come back to it now that I've slept.
I've modified the narratives based on your comments, changing the titles to reflect the disparity between what Logos recommends and how the average Beta tester behaves when ignoring Logos' recommendation to avoid the command in question. Mark, I'm curious what you think about the chart staying or going. Right now I think the chart should come off the Beta testing wiki page and should stay on the Update Channel page. I think if someone wants to really understand the issue then the chart can be helpful. it is it is at the bottom of the Updated Channel page and easily ignored if someone only wants the bottom line.
If these changes are agreeable to all in this discussion I will add them to the page I started. I'll let Mark decide if he wants them on the Beta testing page.
Recommend Beta tester behavior
The User installs Logos 4 using the Beta installer. It updates with each Beta release. The user does not modify the update channel. When Logos installs RC-1 the program considers itself to be stable and ignores subsequent Release Candidates until the final RC is declared golden and the installation updates. The tester who wishes to put each RC through its paces downloads the beta installer to install them manually.
Typical Beta tester behavior
The User invokes "Set Update Channel to Beta" either to join the Beta or to insure that the program receives each RC. Once the release is golden the tester can a) do nothing and Logos moves directly into the next beta cycle with Beta 1 or b) the user revokes the previous command with "Set Update Channel to Default" and stays on the Gold release until he or she is confident in the stability of the next beta cycle and manually installs the beta or resets the channel to Beta.
Right now I think the chart should come off the Beta testing wiki page and should stay on the Update Channel page.
I think that's probably best if there's a clear link from beta testing to your page.
There's a typo in your first heading "Recommended". I shall resist complaining that you've spelt 'behavior' wrongly!! Other than that, it's great. [:D]
I think if someone wants to really understand the issue then the chart can be helpful. it is it is at the bottom of the Updated Channel page and easily ignored if someone only wants the bottom line.
I still think it is too complex.
Recommend Beta tester behavior The User installs Logos 4 using the Beta installer. It updates with each Beta release. The user does not modify the update channel. When Logos installs RC-1 the program considers itself to be stable and ignores subsequent Release Candidates until the final RC is declared golden and the installation updates. The tester who wishes to put each RC through its paces downloads the beta installer to install them manually.
The third person is too remote and why is the program making decisions about its future i.e. "the program considers itself to be stable":-
"You install Logos4 using using the Beta installer and L4 will update with each Beta release without having to modify the update channel. When Logos delivers the first RC the program is no longer a beta and any subsequent Release Candidates should be installed using the recommended installer. When the final RC is declared golden the installation reverts to Standard."
Typical Beta tester behavior The User invokes "Set Update Channel to Beta" either to join the Beta or to insure that the program receives each RC. Once the release is golden the tester can a) do nothing and Logos moves directly into the next beta cycle with Beta 1 or b) the user revokes the previous command with "Set Update Channel to Default" and stays on the Gold release until he or she is confident in the stability of the next beta cycle and manually installs the beta or resets the channel to Beta.
"You can use "Set Update Channel to Beta" either to join the Beta or to ensure that you will receive each RC. When the release is declared golden it is advisable to "Set Update Channel to Default" and remain a standard installation until you are confident in the stability of the next beta cycle and decide to join it. If you remain on the beta channel you will not receive any Service Releases and will move directly into the next beta cycle."
Ok, I've modified the two wiki pages in question. I think they have both benefited from this discussion even though Dave an I don't see eye-to-eye about the inclusion of the chart. Dave, I've given it a heading to scare off all but the most dedicated Logos geeks. Thanks for your engagement and urging simplicity.
I hope not to think of this much more until 4.0d goes golden [:)]
Of course, we will be forced to by those who have left their update channel on Beta and didn't want 4.0d Beta 1 right away. [:S]
Recommend Beta tester behavior The User installs Logos 4 using the Beta installer. It updates with each Beta release. The user does not modify the update channel. When Logos installs RC-1 the program considers itself to be stable and ignores subsequent Release Candidates until the final RC is declared golden and the installation updates. The tester who wishes to put each RC through its paces downloads the beta installer to install them manually. Typical Beta tester behavior The User invokes "Set Update Channel to Beta" either to join the Beta or to insure that the program receives each RC. Once the release is golden the tester can a) do nothing and Logos moves directly into the next beta cycle with Beta 1 or b) the user revokes the previous command with "Set Update Channel to Default" and stays on the Gold release until he or she is confident in the stability of the next beta cycle and manually installs the beta or resets the channel to Beta.
Thanks! That clarifies a lot for me. I am still mystified as to why Bradley doesn't want us doing the typical beta tester behavior. That would mean they'd put out a RC, we'd find bugs in it and report them, they'd put out a new RC and wouldn't hear back about any bugs because nobody would get it so they'd assume it was ready to go golden. It's too much of a nuisance to remember to download the new RC manually each time one comes out (and we might have missed the announcement of it on the forum). So I'm glad most of us do the typical beta tester behavior (at least I assume we do).
Of course, we will be forced to by those who have left their update channel on Beta and didn't want 4.0d Beta 1 right away.
Or wonder why everybody else is on SR-2 and they can't get it!
