| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
Hi Wayne, I agree with you about scope creep, however I do see issues for users.From an end user perspective V5 is a big change. I noticed big changes just from missing nightly updates for 2 months. There may be an extended period of time when a user will want to run both versions, for many reasons.
On 06/04/18 01:54, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
I agree with this, except I think we should ONLY read the V4 config once, when the program detects there is no V5 config sub directory at all. After the V5 config is made and saved, the V4 config should be ignored, and they should diverge from that point.We should defer this to v6 unless the fix is simple with little or no risk of introducing new bugs. I know it would be nice to have but I could say that about a lot of things. Scope creep will prevent us from ever delivering v5. Cheers, Wayne On 4/5/2018 12:25 PM, Seth Hillbrand wrote:If we are going to support multiple versions, on the developer side, we should add a preference versioning to the user configuration directory. Otherwise, fp-lib-table will being either pointing to v4 or v5 footprints. Likewise, there are a few preferences that only exist in v5 and will be lost when v4 saves the preference file. To avoid cluttering the config directory, we could place the v5 configurations in a v5 sub directory. Configurations would be preferentially loaded from the v5 directory with a fall-back to the v4 items if v5 items were not found. Configurations would only be saved to the v5 subdir.
I don't know this code at all, but If no one else is doing it, I can try and look at it over the weekend. But I wont waste time if the decision is already final.
If we don't do this can I propose that the V5 packaging make a backup of the V4 config so that end users at least have the option of reverting without their config being lost.
Steven
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
