In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gervase Markham wrote: > > AFAICS, the options are >> a) use build ids >> b) fail to nag 1.4 branch nightly / release candidates >> c) nag 1.4 final release users >> >> You seem to have rejected a) and b), so the remaining option is to >> stay as we are. I think b) would be a better option personally (and >> obviously Daniel did too) > > I haven't rejected b; I merely asked a question about it.
You asked how it did something, not if it did something, which would imply that the "something" was thought necessary. > However, > failing to catch 1.4 trunk and branch nightly users is pretty bad. Personally I think it's less bad than catching 1.4 final users, but that's your call. > Option d) is: restore some way of telling released builds to the user > agent. What about that? That's an option for the general discussion about the nag script, but unless you have a time machine handy, I don't see how you're going to change the user agent in the 1.4 builds that are now distributed all over the world. :) On the wider point, I think it would be a good thing to change the UA for releases, but it does mean that someone (with suitable checkin permissions and authorisation) needs to change the revision immediately before a release, make a new set of builds, and change it again immediately after (before the tree is reopened). I'm not sure the release/build folks would appreciate the extra work (it was failing to happen reliably before, and the change after a freeze has taken a couple of days on the past couple of occasions, which suggests they wouldn't). -- Michael
