MantisBT
Main | My View | View Issues | Change Log | Roadmap
  

View Issue Details [ Jump to Notes ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ]
IDProjectCategoryView StatusDate SubmittedLast Update
0001617SUMoRefactoringpublic2012-06-26 17:512012-10-23 10:53
Reporterpoutnikg 
Assigned ToKyle_Katarn 
PrioritynormalSeverityminorReproducibilityN/A
StatusacknowledgedResolutionopen 
PlatformNotebook Lenovo T400OSWindows XPOS VersionProfesional SP3
Product Version3.2 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Summary0001617: OS version dependency of latest version
DescriptionMultiple software has OS version dependent latest version number.
Usually if support of older OS is dropped and latest becomes last.
Or, sometimes 2 paralled version lines are maintained.

Maximalistic variant:
Clients would UL/DL also OS version and comparison would be done
together with OS dependency.

Smaller variant:
Clients would UL only OS version to server.
"Get update" SUMO feature would have marked versions by OS if applies.

Minimalistic variant:
OS info would be able to be trigger by web action
or through forum like stable/beta thread.
Info would have just web informational status, out of SUMO functionality.
TagsNo tags attached.
Attached Files

- Relationships

-  Notes
(0000908)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-06-27 10:24

 E.g. Access Connections for Lenovo ThinkPads has latest version
5.85.0.0 for XP and Vista
http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/downloads/detail.page?LegacyDocID=MIGR-4ZLNJB [^]
http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/downloads/detail.page?&LegacyDocID=MIGR-67283 [^]
5.93.0.0 for W7
http://support.lenovo.com/en_US/downloads/detail.page?&LegacyDocID=MIGR-73682 [^]
(0001118)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-08-16 11:53

 If SUMO would communicate the OS version with the server,
it could be able determine the proper latest version for give OS.

For still alive W XP the latest version is very often different
to the one for W7.
(0001119)
bytehead (updater)
2012-08-16 22:29

 I'm all for the first (maximalistic) approach, which means that current data model should be expanded.
(0001120)
Kyle_Katarn (administrator)
2012-08-17 01:12

 Sure but for a given users count in the overall database, it would drastically reduce number of users for given {product ; OS}

Would a case by case (by appending OS, like we currently append 64-bitness) be a reasonnable compromise ?
(0001124)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-08-17 10:45
edited on: 2012-08-17 11:32

 Well, sometimes drastically reduced number of users is advantage, if the others are not relevant to me.

But I agree it could be better case by case,
e.g. by context menu in sense
"I do insist this is last stable for my OS in spite of existance newer stable".
(0001129)
bytehead (updater)
2012-08-17 19:53
edited on: 2012-08-17 20:02

 I agree with poutnikg: OS relevance is more significant for our goals than common prevalence.

Regarding the case-by-case resolution, for me it's seems in line with proposed automatic processing of community beta reports, which would require significant changes in both the communication protocol and server-side code (besides, effective anti-abuse measures should be well thought out and discussed before implementation). And I hope this will be realized eventually.

For the time being, I dislike the current manual exception handling for betas (via mail/forum) and implementing this new feature the same way wouldn't do any good. So, until SUMo back-end is ready for fully automatic community-based training, we should better rely on implicit information obtained by general scanning for platform relevance.

What we need to attain though is the least common denominator in terms of platform major compatibility levels. Which means we can map product versions to relevant platform groups, not to the specific Windows revisions and their Service Packs, e.g.:

1a) [W4.x] for Win 95/95_OSR2/98/98SE/Millenium (is this supported by SUMo at all?);
1b) [NT4.x] for NT4 Workstation/Server (same question here);
2) [NT5.x] for Win 2000/XP, Server 2003;
3) [NT6.x] for Win Vista/7, Server 2008/2008R2, Home Server 2007/2011;
4) [NT7.x]??? for Win 8/Server 2012;

This way, I guess there will be enough users in every {Product[+bitness]; OS_Platform} group for our goals.
(0001133)
Kyle_Katarn (administrator)
2012-08-18 01:02

 OK, to be investigated further on my side for feasibility
(0001139)
poutnikg (reporter)
2012-08-18 12:58

 I dislike email/forum exceptiom handling too,
it is all sides resource demanding and its scalability is very poor.

I do not expect much improvement in exception management,
until some good server client protocol is implemented,
addressing also mentioned abusive issues.
(0001144)
Kyle_Katarn (administrator)
2012-08-18 16:31

 This is a good idea, especially if we want to extend scope of SUMo (or side product) to drivers (which are OS depend by definition), but my fear is that it makes server maintenance a real burden (beta tagging to be done 4 times instead of one).

Or it will require significant "tooling upgrade" for administrator. I take to action to find out a decent solution.

- Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2012-06-26 17:51 poutnikg New Issue
2012-06-26 22:29 Kyle_Katarn Assigned To => Kyle_Katarn
2012-06-26 22:29 Kyle_Katarn Status new => acknowledged
2012-06-27 10:24 poutnikg Note Added: 0000908
2012-08-16 11:53 poutnikg Note Added: 0001118
2012-08-16 22:29 bytehead Note Added: 0001119
2012-08-17 01:12 Kyle_Katarn Note Added: 0001120
2012-08-17 10:45 poutnikg Note Added: 0001124
2012-08-17 11:32 poutnikg Note Edited: 0001124 View Revisions
2012-08-17 19:53 bytehead Note Added: 0001129
2012-08-17 19:57 bytehead Note Edited: 0001129 View Revisions
2012-08-17 20:01 bytehead Note Edited: 0001129 View Revisions
2012-08-17 20:02 bytehead Note Edited: 0001129 View Revisions
2012-08-18 01:02 Kyle_Katarn Note Added: 0001133
2012-08-18 12:58 poutnikg Note Added: 0001139
2012-08-18 16:31 Kyle_Katarn Note Added: 0001144

MantisBT 1.2.15 [^]
Copyright © 2000 - 2013 MantisBT Team
Powered by Mantis Bugtracker