• Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.

    If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.

    - The Lone Wolf Development Team

so, about that major update

Seregil

Well-known member
The major update was pushed back when it was realized there was an issue in the updater (if I understood correctly).

Ok.

I thought the issue was resolved and we would see the update pushed soon after.

Any ETA on this major update? (whatever it is)
 
I wonder if they are holding off to ensure that more of their customer base has installed the recent updates that allow the major update. I would like to think, however, that it would be smart enough to know that the user was trying to "skip" and update and force them to install the necessary fix before allowing the user to download and install the major update.
 
The issue is a bug in the logic that detects that a new version is available that is required and necessitates a tightly coordinated update with the server. The bug in the CLIENT, and it will cause things to fail in obscure and confusing ways. That means that whenever we release the major update, anyone who has not yet updated to the interim release will encounter the same issue. There is nothing we can do to retroactively fix the version that users have running on their computers today, and that's the rub. The best we can do is fix the bug within the interim updates and get as many users as possible to install those updates before we release the major update.

So we are waiting until a meaningful percentage of users have updated to the interim releases so that they will not encounter this bug.
 
The issue is a bug in the logic that detects that a new version is available that is required and necessitates a tightly coordinated update with the server. The bug in the CLIENT, and it will cause things to fail in obscure and confusing ways. That means that whenever we release the major update, anyone who has not yet updated to the interim release will encounter the same issue. There is nothing we can do to retroactively fix the version that users have running on their computers today, and that's the rub. The best we can do is fix the bug within the interim updates and get as many users as possible to install those updates before we release the major update.

So we are waiting until a meaningful percentage of users have updated to the interim releases so that they will not encounter this bug.

So we're waiting for enough average users to update?

Dear Heavens, we're doomed! ;-)

Thanks for the answer. I don't suppose you could make the wait easier by telling us what's in the update? *wink*
 
The issue is a bug in the logic that detects that a new version is available that is required and necessitates a tightly coordinated update with the server. The bug in the CLIENT, and it will cause things to fail in obscure and confusing ways. That means that whenever we release the major update, anyone who has not yet updated to the interim release will encounter the same issue. There is nothing we can do to retroactively fix the version that users have running on their computers today, and that's the rub. The best we can do is fix the bug within the interim updates and get as many users as possible to install those updates before we release the major update.

So we are waiting until a meaningful percentage of users have updated to the interim releases so that they will not encounter this bug.
How are you collecting this metric? is it by installed base or by recent login? You do know that some significant percentage of any user base will have installed a software package and stopped using it right?
 
How are you collecting this metric? is it by installed base or by recent login? You do know that some significant percentage of any user base will have installed a software package and stopped using it right?

It seems some of you have a very low opinion of our ability to consider these factors. Yes, we are taking these factors into consideration. I'm not going to go into all sorts of silly details that will just be a distraction from continuing development on everything that's still in the works.

I realize that it's now football season, so armchair quarterbacking is all the rage, but come on, folks.

Yes, I realize that was a little snarky, but I interpret the above comment as questioning our basic intelligence and experience. So I'm honestly a bit offended. At least @Seregil put a smiley face after his comment, so I'm going to assume he wasn't serious.

You'll note that I said MEANINGFUL. That's a heck of a lot different than "majority", "large", etc. It means we're taking all the various factors into consideration and identifying a target that makes sense. Sheesh!
 
Thanks for the answer. I don't suppose you could make the wait easier by telling us what's in the update? *wink*

That was done at the bottom of the announcement that the release was delayed, which was also included in the monthly newsletter. Please refer there for a glimpse of some of the enhancements that will be in the upcoming release.
 
The issue is a bug in the logic that detects that a new version is available that is required and necessitates a tightly coordinated update with the server. The bug in the CLIENT, and it will cause things to fail in obscure and confusing ways. That means that whenever we release the major update, anyone who has not yet updated to the interim release will encounter the same issue. There is nothing we can do to retroactively fix the version that users have running on their computers today, and that's the rub. The best we can do is fix the bug within the interim updates and get as many users as possible to install those updates before we release the major update.

So we are waiting until a meaningful percentage of users have updated to the interim releases so that they will not encounter this bug.

You must have been waiting for me... I have upgraded to release 200... so let's do the big one!



j/k :)
 
That was done at the bottom of the announcement that the release was delayed, which was also included in the monthly newsletter. Please refer there for a glimpse of some of the enhancements that will be in the upcoming release.

Oh, I saw it. I just get the feeling there's more to it than is hinted at. Mind you, that's probably wishful thinking on my part.

I'm desperate for the Web client which requires the content market which...

Anyways, keep up the good work, I was just curious about when the mentionned big update was going to go live. :)
 
At least @Seregil put a smiley face after his comment, so I'm going to assume he wasn't serious.

Oh, my sarcasm is aimed at the average user. The "why wouldn't I install yet another toolbar in my browser" guy. He's the guy of guy that doesn't read any of the instructions, doesn't do patches unless they're forced and is completely clueless about anything with a transistor in it.

I work in IT and my opinion of Joe User is very low. I meant it that way, sorry if came across as snark towards the dev team.
 
Oh, my sarcasm is aimed at the average user. The "why wouldn't I install yet another toolbar in my browser" guy. He's the guy of guy that doesn't read any of the instructions, doesn't do patches unless they're forced and is completely clueless about anything with a transistor in it.

I work in IT and my opinion of Joe User is very low. I meant it that way, sorry if came across as snark towards the dev team.
This is why they say 90% of computer problems happen between the chair and the keyboard. :D :p
 
It seems some of you have a very low opinion of our ability to consider these factors. Yes, we are taking these factors into consideration. I'm not going to go into all sorts of silly details that will just be a distraction from continuing development on everything that's still in the works.
Having worked in software my whole adult life and dealt with many small companies in that time questions like these do need to be asked. You would apparently be amazed at how often things like that haven't been considered.
 
PEBCAK, ID10T (eye-dee-ten-tee), and so on. Plenty of variants you have to be careful about; when I worked in tech support using those terms with a caller was a potentially fireable offense. Not that it stopped us from using them offline or in the call database. (Heck, I wrote a parody of The Ballad of Gilligan's Isle into the database once about a call that just wouldn't end. :)
 
Last edited:
Back at the turn of the century I was working for a small software company and we sent out a major update to a piece of software and as one of the newer developers I was one of the people fielding CS calls that the call center guys couldn't resolve. So I get a call from what seems like a perfectly reasonable and nice person who is having a problem that no one has been able to figure out. After listening to him describe the problem I realize the problem almost has to be in a config file so I have him open it. First problem, he has no idea how to do so. I have to explain in incredibly simple terms how to find and open the file. Sure enough the problem is the config file has somehow gotten garbled. So he simply needs to edit one line to fix his problem. He can't. I have to explain what deleting stuff is and how to save the file and he gets confused and refuses to do anything. Then it turns out he doesn't have email so he can't even send me the file. The program was installed on the laptop by an employee so eventually I did get it fixed but it was amazing how completely computer illiterate this person was in 2000 or 2001.
 
...but it was amazing how completely computer illiterate this person was in 2000 or 2001.

How old were they? My late mother (died in 2011 at the age of 87) had a computer she'd bought on the advice of a neighbour, and she was pretty good at sending and receiving emails, right up until she got to the point that she was confined to bed. She could also do simple searches using google. Though do note: never, ever give an elderly hypochondriac google. As you value your and her doctor's sanity, just don't do it.

But there was no way on earth she would have been able to do anything around editing inside config files or using regedit. Anything like that was way, way beyond her understanding and she would have been terrified she'd be launching missiles over Birmingham.

Even I think twice about doing that kind of thing, and I've been using computers since the mid 80s. Plus, when I worked I had colleagues younger than me whose understanding of their computers was way, way less than mine.
 
Back
Top