Development of Great Cow BASIC is moving faster and faster. We have more and more developers on board to grow the libraries, improve the libraries and provide quality improvements to the tool chain, demonstrations and the Help.
Since the last release of v0.98.01, six weeks ago, we have 14 changes - some major, some minor but all will add value to some users.
So, there is a need to provide a regular patch kit, in a consistent way, to share these new capabilities and improvements.
The community of developers is improving the quality of Great Cow BASIC.
Publishing the Help source here. Many of you have updated the source to the Help - thank you.
We share the Help on a daily basis. This is built and published here
Publishing the Demonstration source code here. Again, a number of you have added demonstrations and/or corrected the existing demonstrations.
Releases
The release of Great Cow BASIC is about every six months. We collate changes into a coherent build, package up, test and test and then publish. These releases are available for a growing range of use cases and operating systems.
Patch Kit
So. what could it be? A patch kit is a distribution that MUST be applied to an existing installation. Simple put - it would be additive to an existing installation. Unpack the patch kit distribution and then update with the new files.
The patch kit is going to contain the following mandated components:
* Compiler
* Latest Help
* Latest demonstrations
* Updated hardware libraries
* Updated lowlevel libraries
* Updated IDE Lex
* Updated IDE Helpers
* Updated readme.txt!
The patch kit is NOT going to contain the following components:
* Batch files for programming
* Any tools - programmers etc
The patch kit would be consistent in terms of an operational toolchain. This means using the compiler and the libraries as a consistent installation is most important - you cannot, and should not, take just the compiler and not the libraries. Things will break! I will not have time to figure what does not work with what. The patch kit NEEDS to be consistent in terms of an operational toolchain.
The patch kit could have litte issues (as I call them.... you may call the bugs!!!) but the purpose of the patch kit is to share the ongoing development so you can leverage the investment of the community.
Summary
A good idea? A stupid idea?
What do you think should be included beyond what I have shared above?
What should not be included to ensure the patch kit is a small as practical? In the context that this will be an automated process and only one patch kit will be produced! I am not thinking of a host of different kits. One patch kit. I will include the mandated components - this is not up for debate.
Should we include the source code for the Linux users?
What are you thoughts?
Yes/No?
Anobium
Last edit: Anobium 2017-11-19
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Sounds cool.
Will be the main Dirtirution updated and always keep uptodate as well?
If Yes, no need for extra Linux Sources, If no, a solution for Linux would very much apreciated
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Good question. The main release program would continue as we add key functionality. Key functionality is when the compiler or libraries have a step change like we have seen in the last year.
I will include Linux source when appropriate. Some patches kits will have Linux source, some may not. Why ? Because we may be mid development and we don't want to provide a broken solution.
And, I have added PPSTOOL. This is a good reason to use the Patch Kit.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
How would this affect the Flash Drive installation option?
I have been using GCB on a flash drive so I can move it from computer to computer and it works great.
Would the patch update the flash drive as well?
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I like the sound of a 'Patch Kit'. It should be easier for me to implement within the WINE environment I use rather than the full update package which often overwrites my customisations.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Development of Great Cow BASIC is moving faster and faster. We have more and more developers on board to grow the libraries, improve the libraries and provide quality improvements to the tool chain, demonstrations and the Help.
Since the last release of v0.98.01, six weeks ago, we have 14 changes - some major, some minor but all will add value to some users.
So, there is a need to provide a regular patch kit, in a consistent way, to share these new capabilities and improvements.
The community of developers is improving the quality of Great Cow BASIC.
Publishing the Help source here. Many of you have updated the source to the Help - thank you.
We share the Help on a daily basis. This is built and published here
Publishing the Demonstration source code here. Again, a number of you have added demonstrations and/or corrected the existing demonstrations.
Releases
The release of Great Cow BASIC is about every six months. We collate changes into a coherent build, package up, test and test and then publish. These releases are available for a growing range of use cases and operating systems.
Patch Kit
So. what could it be? A patch kit is a distribution that MUST be applied to an existing installation. Simple put - it would be additive to an existing installation. Unpack the patch kit distribution and then update with the new files.
The patch kit is going to contain the following mandated components:
* Compiler
* Latest Help
* Latest demonstrations
* Updated hardware libraries
* Updated lowlevel libraries
* Updated IDE Lex
* Updated IDE Helpers
* Updated readme.txt!
The patch kit is NOT going to contain the following components:
* Batch files for programming
* Any tools - programmers etc
The patch kit would be consistent in terms of an operational toolchain. This means using the compiler and the libraries as a consistent installation is most important - you cannot, and should not, take just the compiler and not the libraries. Things will break! I will not have time to figure what does not work with what. The patch kit NEEDS to be consistent in terms of an operational toolchain.
The patch kit could have litte issues (as I call them.... you may call the bugs!!!) but the purpose of the patch kit is to share the ongoing development so you can leverage the investment of the community.
Summary
A good idea? A stupid idea?
What do you think should be included beyond what I have shared above?
What should not be included to ensure the patch kit is a small as practical? In the context that this will be an automated process and only one patch kit will be produced! I am not thinking of a host of different kits. One patch kit. I will include the mandated components - this is not up for debate.
Should we include the source code for the Linux users?
What are you thoughts?
Yes/No?
Anobium
Last edit: Anobium 2017-11-19
Sounds cool.
Will be the main Dirtirution updated and always keep uptodate as well?
If Yes, no need for extra Linux Sources, If no, a solution for Linux would very much apreciated
Good question. The main release program would continue as we add key functionality. Key functionality is when the compiler or libraries have a step change like we have seen in the last year.
I will include Linux source when appropriate. Some patches kits will have Linux source, some may not. Why ? Because we may be mid development and we don't want to provide a broken solution.
And, I have added PPSTOOL. This is a good reason to use the Patch Kit.
How would this affect the Flash Drive installation option?
I have been using GCB on a flash drive so I can move it from computer to computer and it works great.
Would the patch update the flash drive as well?
Great questions. This will not impact your use case. Simply unpack onto the drive. All should be ok.
Super! GCB evolves very quickly ... I can not put up with the development of the GCB :) But I have the honor of being with GCB!
You message is understood regarding evolution. :-)
I like the sound of a 'Patch Kit'. It should be easier for me to implement within the WINE environment I use rather than the full update package which often overwrites my customisations.
You be able to write your own extract routine to manage the update process for your local computer. :-)