This post is in response to a series of comments between myself and John T Haller which can be found here, where he suggested that I propose this as a site-wide policy change for feedback from the community.
Basically, I am proposing two things:
- Upon the release of a PortableApps.com App which had previously been released as a Development Test on the Beta Testing forum, the Development Test and/or Pre-Release thread(s) associated with the app should be edited so that the thread title contains the word "Released" inside square brackets (e.g. [Released], or [Officially Released]), and a link to the official release's homepage should be added (along with some explanatory text) to the top of the opening post of the thread.
- When a new thread is created for a Development Test or Pre-Release of a program which already has an existing thread (e.g. because the old thread was getting too long, a new dev took over, it's a Pre-Release, etc.), the old thread(s) should be edited so that the thread title contains the word "Outdated" inside square brackets (i.e. [Outdated]), and a link to the new thread should be added (with explanatory text) to the top of the opening post of the the thread.
The responsibility to update the old thread(s) in such a manner should go to the developer who opened the old Development Test thread(s), however strict enforcement of this is most likely not necessary, and in some cases not possible as there are a number of Development Test developers who are not active on PortableApps.com any more, or for some other reason may not be contactable and/or may not be able to make the edits. In such cases it will fall to forum moderators to make the edit(s) if/when it comes to their attention.
I would like to point out some examples of existing threads where people did I'm suggesting:
- [Released] Krita Portable 2.9.7.6 Dev Test 2
- [Officially Released] FSViewer Portable 6.2 Dev Test 1
- [Outdated] MuseScore Portable 0.9.6.3 Development Test 1
- [Outdated] PortableApps.com Platform 2.0 Beta 3 Testing
- [Outdated] PortableApps.com Launcher 1.0 Alpha 4
A few notes:
- The reason for these policy changes would be to make it more clear for people visiting old, unmaintained Development Test threads that newer versions exist in another place, which should most likely be used instead of the one(s) available from the thread they're on.
- Each of the two suggestions should stand on their own merit as far as whether or not they get implemented. i.e. If one gets accepted or rejected, please continue to consider the other. Each of these two suggestions could be implemented whether the other is, or is not.
- This kind of decision may fall mostly to John T Haller as the site's administrator, but the moderators, and community as a whole are affected, and are being asked for feedback.
- I am not saying that the moderators must suddenly search for and find all old DevTest threads, editing them as described, but rather that as current and new threads become old threads, and as old threads are noticed or brought to the attention of moderators, they should be edited to fit the above criteria.
Please respond with feedback, as that's why this thread was made.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
Very good proposal.
I would add one more thing, please tell where each "Beta" software is in queue to get official or at least what's preventing it form becoming one.
Thank You.
Glad you like my proposal.
In regards to your proposal: To my knowledge John's the only one who can make the final decision as to what becomes an official app, so it's not feasible to have every Beta/DevTest get a status update. On the other hand, there have been numerous attempts to put together a "PortableApps.com Release Team", which should be able to "sign off" on a Development Test to say it's good enough in it's current state to be released, and while I'm not sure what the current status of the "PortableApps.com Release Team" is, there is a page for them to write up their finding on potentially releasable DevTests here. Other than that, the whole point of a Development Test release is for testers to check it out and reply with information to help the developer make sure it's stable, fully portable, and packaged properly. If you want to see an app in the DevTest forum become official, test it for stability and portability issues, and familiarize yourself with the PAF Format and proper packaging techniques so you can help developers get everything properly sorted.
~3D1T0R
I will direct my comments at each point.
1. I fully support this proposal.
2. I support the proposal, with the caveat that this not be used as an excuse to create a new thread, but rather is used in the cases where a new one has been started already.
Note: As adding a comment to a thread sends out a new subscription notice to any users either involved in or subscribed to the thread, perhaps a single stickied thread can be used instead for notifying moderators & administrators of threads meeting the criteria, with comments being deleted when dealt with, just like the outdated apps page.
Thank you for your support.
As to creating new threads for existing apps, the policy change(s) I suggest should have no affect on whether or not someone creates a new thread for an app that already has one.
As far as when it's acceptable to create a new thread and when it's not, my understanding can basically be summed up in that a Development Test thread should continue to be reused for new releases unless it is infeasible to do so. For instance when a new developer takes over an app the new dev should start a new thread so that they can edit the opening post for themself when new releases are made, or when there are many pages of comments regarding things that do not apply to a new release, in which case a new thread should be made for the new release, or when a new release so notably different from the previous version(s) that it's effectively a different app (like if K-meleon had received an updated DevTest prior to being released, 74+ was probably different enough from 1.x that it would have warranted a new thread).
~3D1T0R
Agreed, glad we're on the same page