[josm-dev] Another 66 relations bite the dust
Richard Fairhurst
richard at systemeD.net
Mon May 10 14:23:14 BST 2010
Dirk Stöcker wrote:
> If this is really an issue, then maybe the API should block older versions
> known to cause trouble as it already did in the past.
Yes, maybe it should.
But as a first resort, I'd encourage you to look at improving your
presentation. I have JOSM 3094 and all that it tells me about upgrading
is this (as the third item on the splash screen):
"Active version '3094' should be updated! The current stable snapshot is
3208 and 3227 is the unstable development version."
...which is a really obscure statement likely to elicit "meh, whatever"
from most non-developer users. What's an "Active version '3094'" when
it's at home? What's a "stable snapshot" - a photograph of a horse? (And
why the passive voice? Computer says it "should be updated". Well, jolly
good, Mr Computer, go and update it then.)
If, instead, it said as the _first_ thing on the page:
"You are using an old version of JOSM with known bugs. Click here to
download the latest version. This old version will stop working in five
days."
then maybe we would get somewhere. But the fact that you say "We still
have a large number of old version (6 to 12 months old) floating around"
shows that the current approach isn't working.
> Well, Potlatch deleted every German name in Saxonia for one user when he
> entered the Sorbian names. Was a lot of work to fix this as well (as he
> did do multiple changesets). I still found two missing ones yesterday,
> after nearly half a year.
If you can cite changeset/object ids I'll look into it.
cheers
Richard
More information about the josm-dev
mailing list