Re: [Audacity-devel] Message files for wxWidgets 2.8.10

[Vaughan J. <va...@au...>]

Gale Andrews wrote:
> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
> | Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:49:43 -0700
> | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Message files for wxWidgets 2.8.10
>   
>>> ...
>>>   
>>>       
>> I can do the Windows builds, unless Gale wants to.
>>     
>
> At the moment I think I'm OK with doing it on Sunday, if it's 
> circa 19:00 UTC or thereafter?  Before then, I won't be able to. 
> Since I'll be building both releases anyway till then, it may 
> make more sense.
>   
Great, thanks. I'm happy with it being even later than that, if I have a 
chance on getting the MixerBoard in shape!

> ...
> * Are we agreed as discussed that the Windows executable 
>    is called audacity_beta.exe? This appears to work OK 
>    with appropriate changes to the installer if you rename
>    "audacity.exe" to "audacity_beta" exe in the build folder 
>    before building the installer. The point of this is so that people  
>    who already have audacity.exe (Stable) installed can 
>    create "open with" associations with 1.3.8 for MP3, OGG, 
>    WAV, WMA, FLV etc. 
Hadn't heard that idea. We could make the sln build it with that name, 
so it doesn't have to be renamed.  Just have to change the sln again 
when it goes back to a stable release.

> Otherwise, they cannot, due to
>    Windows limitations. Downside is I suppose we need separate 
>    .iss files for Beta? 
>   
Not really. The two iss files have to change for every release anyway, 
so we can just change them to use audacity_beta. And change it back for 
the stable release.

Seems like a pretty marginal case for the extra work, though. I doubt a 
very big percentage of users have both versions of Audacity installed 
and know enough to set up file associations.


>     
> * Reading the "rules" on Google Code, it seems we can label old 
>    download files as "deprecated" so that the "current" view only 
>    has currently supported files. Anyone wanting unsupported ones
>    has to choose the "All downloads" or "Deprecated downloads" 
>    view. So would we label the 1.3.7 downloads as "deprecated"?   
>  
>   
Sounds reasonable to me. But I don't think it matters because we'll be 
linking directly to the files, right? So most users will never see the 
list or a Google Code page at all.

- V