[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