scafativ Report post Posted June 7, 2007 In the evil, I mean windows version- if you look at the properties of the executable (right-click in windows explorer>properties>version tab, version 1.4.0 claims to be 1.3.3. I know that this is minor, but it may be suggestive of a config management issue, so I thought I'd mention it. scaf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ttlanhil Report post Posted June 7, 2007 (edited) alright, before beaverhunter pops up to say "me too", I'll go fix this in CVS ed: done Edited June 7, 2007 by ttlanhil Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Entropy Report post Posted June 8, 2007 Oh well, too late now, I am not going to release yet another patch :/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beaverhunter Report post Posted June 8, 2007 alright, before beaverhunter pops up to say "me too", I'll go fix this in CVS ed: done sigh...errm.... I'm gonna have to say "me too", because it's _not_ fixed. FILEVERSION 1,3,3,0 PRODUCTVERSION 1,4,4,0 Both of these are wrong, and WinXP still reports 1.3.3.0 fileversion. Just copy and paste the code I posted in the other thread and it's all done... I reported this days ago, it could have been in the latest patch if ttlanhil would have listened to me, but he didn't =( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ttlanhil Report post Posted June 8, 2007 okay, all data in that file changed in CVS now and I'm tired of your whining. as I told you then, and since, there were more important things to worry about than a version number being wrong. to everyone else, it'll be fixed if/when there's another update (unless that includes a version bump and one of the files isn't updated) to devs (probably mostly learner, since he seems to be the one to bump the version), why do we have stuff in several files? can't it be simplified? now. apart from simplifying the version info, end of topic, on both other issues Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Beaverhunter Report post Posted June 8, 2007 okay, all data in that file changed in CVS now and I'm tired of your whining. as I told you then, and since, there were more important things to worry about than a version number being wrong. ... Please don't even try to turn this over to some kind of "blame the bug reporter"... just admit that you messed up big time and should have listened to me instead. It's not whining to report "bugs" no matter how big priority they might have or not have. I did give you the solution and all you had to do was to copy and paste, and you call it whining when you, too late, don't fix the problem and ignore my finished solution? I would call that a dev not doing what he is suppose to not whining, but that's just my opinion. I don't want to turn this into any flamewar or whatever but at least I shouldn't be blamed or flamed for something good I did. So end of topic. But anyway, good that it's fixed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scafativ Report post Posted June 8, 2007 okay, all data in that file changed in CVS now Thanks ttlanhil. It was a very minor problem, but it's good that it's resolved. And thanks to you and the entire dev team for all the work that you do. A release w/o a subsequent roll-back is a very good release indeed! Scaf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Learner Report post Posted June 8, 2007 okay, all data in that file changed in CVS now and I'm tired of your whining. as I told you then, and since, there were more important things to worry about than a version number being wrong. ... Please don't even try to turn this over to some kind of "blame the bug reporter"... just admit that you messed up big time and should have listened to me instead. It's not whining to report "bugs" no matter how big priority they might have or not have. I did give you the solution and all you had to do was to copy and paste, and you call it whining when you, too late, don't fix the problem and ignore my finished solution? I would call that a dev not doing what he is suppose to not whining, but that's just my opinion. I don't want to turn this into any flamewar or whatever but at least I shouldn't be blamed or flamed for something good I did. So end of topic. But anyway, good that it's fixed. Dev cpp automatically builds elc_private.h and elc_private.rc using the version data you have in the project info. So even changing those two files isn't guaranteed that a user will have the proper version because their dev-cpp also has it's own memory of what it should be! This last time I bumped the version I was on a Linux system so of course I forgot that the .rc & .res files also are affected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
