Third party Patch Manager

[Eric Chatonet]

Hi Jim,

Your idea is a good idea, but is it to us to make for free Rev job  
that they asked us to pay for?
;-)
As for the patches I write:

. They test the running version in order to tell if the patch is  
applicable.
. They test if the patch has been already applied or not.
. They save the current stack as <stack name old> in order to let the  
user reverse the process if needed.
. They apply the patch only when all conditions have been filled.

Can I do more?

Finally, a *Third party patch manager* makes me feel weird...

Le 15 juil. 05 à 14:30, Jim Bufalini a écrit :

> Anyone out there have a *Third party patch manager stack?*
>
> By this I mean, I've applied some patches provided by Chipp and  
> Eric and
> maybe others. I forget exactly, and this is my point. For example,  
> I'm still
> running 2.51 and *trying* to get to 2.6. I say trying, because my  
> 2.51 key
> didn't unlock 2.6 and I've requested another key, but haven't  
> gotten it
> yet - but that's another story.
>
> The point is, I know that 2.6 will require some of the same patches  
> applied
> as 2.51. However, it may not need others, and I may not remember  
> exactly
> what patches I applied prior, that need to be applied to the newer  
> version
> (until, I suppose, a problem occurs and I remember I have a patch  
> for that,
> although I probably won't remember who wrote it, and where I got it  
> from).
>
> It would be nice, if when I apply a patch, I could drag it to a Patch
> Manager stack that, when I upgrade to newer versions, would show all
> previously applied patches with checkboxes, and I could choose to  
> apply the
> patch or not. Maybe a date of when the patch was applied (dragged  
> into the
> manager), so I can remember what version I applied the patch to.
>
> Otherwise, I can see myself hesitating to upgrade and cut over to a  
> newer
> *official* version of Rev.
>
> A MUCH BETTER alternative (hint, hint) to this would be for Rev,  
> itself, to
> maintain a Third Party Patches web page for developers, where  
> developers
> could post their patches (instead of their individual WebPages) and  
> Rev
> could edit the descriptions and categorize them by version number,  
> as being
> applicable to a version.
>
> For example the recent app browser fix from Eric might be  
> classified as:
> Applies to versions 2.51 to 2.6xx ONLY. Prior versions do not  
> require this
> patch, and as of version 2.6yy, it's no longer applicable, as we  
> took the
> silly if...then statement out ourselves. (OK, put a period after  
> the word
> *applicable*).
>
> This would take some of the *fear* out of upgrading and in the long  
> run make
> Rev more money...

Best Regards from Paris,

Eric Chatonet.
----------------------------------------------------------------
So Smart Software

For institutions, companies and associations
Built-to-order applications: management, multimedia, internet, etc.
Windows, Mac OS and Linux... With the French touch

Free plugins and tutorials on my website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Web site        http://www.sosmartsoftware.com/
Email        eric.chatonet at sosmartsoftware.com/
Phone        33 (0)1 43 31 77 62
Mobile        33 (0)6 20 74 50 86
----------------------------------------------------------------