issue-#14: Blackbox building pipeline

[Ivan Denisov]

Have there been changes to the registry in 1.7-a1? If any new / modified registry settings are not backwards-compatible they should be isolated from earlier versions.

I have three stable versions (1.5, 1.6rc5 and 1.6 Final) installed on my machine and I haven't noticed any registry-related problems switching from one to the other. As far as I can see they are shared settings so if you change e.g. the default font, then it will affect another but I would want that anyway.

They will share this settings. We did not modify Registry part of original Oberon microsystems Inno Setup script. However only one version can be the default for opening .odc files. This problem is solving by the ToolsInstaller script. It should be launched from version which you wants to be default.

[Ivan Denisov]

Please, take a look at new About.odc and say your critics.

http://blackboxframework.org/dev/blackb ... a1.009.zip

The issue is described here
http://redmine.blackboxframework.org/issues/11

[DGDanforth]

Please, take a look at new About.odc and say your critics.

http://blackboxframework.org/dev/blackb ... a1.009.zip

The issue is described here
http://redmine.blackboxframework.org/issues/11

Ivan,
Looks good!

(I have created under Program Files on my system the directory 'BlackBox Development'.
My intent is to have only one such place to test new versions)

-Doug

[Josef Templ]

Layout and graphics look good to me.
Just a minor details changed. For the purpose of discussion it can be found here:
http://blackboxframework.org/dev/blackb ... a1.013.zip

The difference is the change in the wording for this line:
"Build by BlackBox Framework Center on <DateTime>

changed to:
"Community Edition, built on <Date-in-ISO-format>"

1. it introduces a name for the distribution: "Community Edition", so that
everybody can refer to it by some name to distinguish it from some other
possible distribution such as OberonCore's, etc. If there are better names,
please feel free to suggest one.

2. time is not included because it is then always the question
if it is local time or UTC or whatever and it is not really
relevant at which time the build happened and so it may rather
be a source of confusion.

3. The date uses ISO format because this is an international standard which should make
it clear what the month is and what the day is. Hopefully.
It is also possible to process it programmatically because it is not localized.
Localizing the date in the About dialog would mean to add a new module
which does not seem to be worth the effort.

To everybody who may not have noticed it so far:
The About dialog from Ivan is a little bit smarter than in 1.6 because
the version and build date are filled in dynamically.
Thus it is not required to make any changes in the About dialog in the
future if the version number changes.

The build date is exactly the same day as written into the buildlog of the release
because it is the same variable in Python now. So there cannot be any midnight
jumps.

- Josef

[DGDanforth]

I agree with Josef on
"Community Edition, built on <Date-in-ISO-format>
"The name also bothered me but I did not up with another on.
I like "Community Edition".

-Doug

[Ivan Denisov]

The Center is not the Community. We discussed this already many times at the early beginning. We isolated our self from the community and can not use this label now. This association will break the logic.

We can use "BlackBox Framework Center Edition", however this is too long.

Let's make a list of versions and vote. I do not think, that it is a simple question, that can be solved without Center decision.

[DGDanforth]

Not so fast!
If we are not representatives of the community then who are we?
To whom do we owe allegiance, just ourselves?
I like Josef's approach because it makes it 'softer'. It removes the onus of dictatorship
(sorry, can't think of a better word right now).
Feedback from the community guides us in our development and so we should be
viewed and operate as a democratic representation of the community.
-Doug

[Ivan Denisov]

Not so fast!
If we are not representatives of the community then who are we?
To whom do we owe allegiance, just ourselves?
I like Josef's approach because it makes it 'softer'. It removes the onus of dictatorship
(sorry, can't think of a better word right now).
Feedback from the community guides us in our development and so we should be
viewed and operate as a democratic representation of the community.

With such level of isolation we simply have no rights for labeling our version as a Community one. It is for the Community, but not out of the Community.

Also this word have some "handmade" tone. The Center aim is to make "enterprise-quality software".

[DGDanforth]

With such level of isolation we simply have no rights for labeling our version as a Community one. It is for the Community, but not out of the Community.

Also this word have some "handmade" tone. The Center aim is to make "enterprise-quality software".

We have not yet acquired a large active community. That still can happen. It requires proper 'marketing' of which I am willing to invest time. OK so you feel "community" does not have a professional sound to it. You may be right. Perhaps a compromise word can be found that includes community and professionalism.

[DGDanforth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_relia ... ganization