How often are you willing to update the software?

[dennisV]

I guess it would also depend on the severity of the issue, but I don't mind pushing out an update every 2-3 weeks with mostly fixes and maybe 1-2 new features (or extended existing ones) as opposed to waiting for more features/fixes to collect.

What I am worried about is that SDS may get an image of software that has lots of issues that need fixing if it's updated often. While most software needs constant fixing (starting with Windows always pushing out updates) I just don't want people to think that SDS is buggy

[nick7]

actually Dennis that thought hadn't occurred to me and I apologise because that is a very valid point, especially when you mention that Microsoft release updates almost it seems on a daily basis for Windows. I will also admit that in saying that I'd be happy to get updates more often than the suggested interval I was probably being somewhat selfish and that just isn't fair, so another apology is called for I think. Just to confirm, SDS is certainly not buggy in any respect other than what is known, and, those issues, as far as I'm concerned anyway, have been satisfactorily resolved.

Once again, profound apologies if I made it sound or look as if SDS is full of bugs because that certainly isn't the case at all.

[dennisV]

No apologies necessary! We're just discussing the best way to push out updates, so that it works best for everyone and I appreciate your input greatly!

For example, right now I have a version that fixes one small issue, one medium issue and has one small new feature in the diary editor. It's too small to release from one point of view, on the other hand it fixes somebody's problems (those who wrote to me about them and received a patched version via e-mail) and those who experience those problems, but I don't know about (because they didn't write to me). But, I released an update only 2 days ago. So, the development is really dynamic, but of course I can't release every few days. That's the dilemma I'm facing.

[nick7]

Sure, I understand perfectly. It's a bit of a dilemma isn't it because if someone has reported an issue to you and it doesn't get fixed for 2-3 weeks, then that person might not enjoy using SDS so much if their problem isn't fixed for the suggested time frame. I suppose one answer to that is just to send the aforementioned person an amended version privately without going public with it. That way the individual concerned gets his fix (no pun intended ) and you haven't had to push out a public update sooner than you intended.

I guess this is one issue that isn't going to have a satisfactory conclusion for everyone, there's no one size fits all here. I think this is one that's going to have to be left to you I'm afraid since whatever answer is given isn't going to be everyone's ideal.

[dennisV]

Yes, that's how it works now, but I'm thinking that 4-6 weeks between updates is still too much (unless I'm implementing something really major). We'll see how the voting goes, but in the mean time I'll continue with the way things are, except maybe release a little bit more often.

[nick7]

I think that's fair enough Dennis. But thank you for putting the question out there anyway.

[Sarai]

Hi, there.

Actually, I'm perfectly happy with the update schedule. If it were every two weeks, for instance, I think the updates would have less features and it would make it more troublesome, at least for me (sorry for the selfishness here). However, if there are bugs which are serious enough to seriously impair working with the software (as opposed to just annoying or slowing the user down a bit), then I believe an off-schedule update would be in order. I don't know if such a bug has ever bugged any of the SDS users, though.

So, my vote is on keeping the updates on 4-6 weeks intervals, with an extra if a serious bug threatens someone's usability.

Sarai