Re: [WebDNA] [createdate] displays today's date on Ubuntu 14.04 / WebDNA Server 8.?
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2014
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 111798
interpreted = N
texte = Sound like an excellent idea.RegardsStuart TremainIDFK Web DevelopmentsAUSTRALIAwebdna@idfk.com.au> On 20 Dec 2014, at 10:39 am, Kenneth Grome
=wrote:>=20> [version] just gives me "8.01" which is the same as what I got> before Chris sent me the bug fixed version ... so no, it does not> uniquely specify the build I received.>=20> What I'm suggesting is that WSC always create and record (in their> own internal records if not also on their website) a new build> number for every build they produce -- including builds produced> during testing if necessary, but absolutely before releasing them> to anyone else.>=20> For example, I am thinking about this possibility:>=20> I find a bug and tell them I'm using build 8.02.327. Then all> they have to do is lookup this build number to learn that this> particular build is for the "Server" version (not fastCGI) and> that runs only on Ubuntu 14.04 or later.>=20> Then they know exactly where to start working on a fix and we> don't have to deal with redundant questions on the talk list about> versions, platforms, Server or FastCGI, etc.>=20> Regards,> Kenneth Grome> WebDNA Solutions> http://www.webdnasolutions.com> Web Database Systems and Linux Server Management>=20>=20> On 12/19/2014 04:34 PM, Stuart Tremain wrote:>> [VERSION] =91should=92 do that>>=20>>=20>> Regards>>=20>> Stuart Tremain>> IDFK Web Developments>> AUSTRALIA>> webdna@idfk.com.au>>=20>>=20>>=20>>=20>>> On 20 Dec 2014, at 9:31 am, Kenneth Grome =wrote:>>>=20>>> I specified "Server" twice, once in the subject and again in the>>> body. But I could not specify the version number (thus the>>> question marks in both the subject and body), here's why:>>>=20>>> Chris sent me the first version/build that was supposed to run on>>> Ubuntu 14.04. I discovered a couple bugs after installing and>>> running it for the first time so I reported these issues. It>>> didn't take him long to fix them both and send me a new build.>>>=20>>> However ...>>>=20>>> The new build did not come with a version number or a build number>>> that I am aware of, so I have no idea how to refer to it -- other>>> than to say that it is the first bug-fixed version built and sent>>> to me after I first used the new Ubuntu 14.04 installer.>>>=20>>> Maybe the take-away here is that WSC can probably do a better job>>> of clearly and uniquely numbering every build they produce. Then>>> we can specify the build number when we have issues to report.>>>=20>>> There's another benefit to uniquely numbering each build too:>>>=20>>> We will never have to specify "Server" or "FastCGI" or platform>>> any more because WSC will immediately know which one we are having>>> problems with simply by looking at the unique build number we give>>> them.>>>=20>>> So now I have a question:>>>=20>>> Isn't it possible to bury a unique build number inside the>>> executable itself, and then run a command that returns that build>>> number?>>>=20>>> It seems to me that Chris gave me instructions for doing this in>>> an earlier version, but as far as I know it is not common>>> knowledge. In fact I have no idea if it would even work on the>>> latest builds -- but if it does we should all learn how to do it>>> -- so we can use a simple command to look up the exact build we>>> are having trouble with.>>>=20>>> Regards,>>> Kenneth Grome>>> WebDNA Solutions>>> http://www.webdnasolutions.com>>> Web Database Systems and Linux Server Management>>>=20>>>=20>>> On 12/19/2014 04:03 PM, Donovan Brooke wrote:>>>> This was fixed way back in the beta FastCGI, then I believe it=20>>>> was fixed in the Server platform as well (off the top of my=20>>>> head).>>>>=20>>>> However, it=92s not impossible that a certain build missed the=20>>>> fix. That=92s why when reporting bugs that you should always>>>> list Server/FastCGI [platform] [version], etc..>>>>=20>>>> Donovan>>>>=20>>>>=20>>>>=20>>>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 3:54 PM, iPhonzie@G =20>>>> wrote:>>>>=20>>>>> [createdate] hasn=92t worked since WebCatalog was ported to=20>>>>> *nix=85 it has always returned the =93last opened date=94 rather=20=>>>>> than the file creation date. I=92m pretty sure I reported this=20>>>>> to Smith Micro a decade ago. I=92m running WebDNA 6, so I>>>>> don=92t know if it was ever fixed in a more recent build.>>>>>=20>>>>> -- Brian Fries Sent with Airmail>>>>>=20>>>>> On December 19, 2014 at 1:40:51 PM, Donovan Brooke=20>>>>> (dbrooke@euca.us) wrote:>>>>>=20>>>>>> Would this be Server or FastCGI?>>>>>>=20>>>>>> Donovan>>>>>>=20>>>>>>=20>>>>>>=20>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Kenneth Grome=20>>>>>> wrote:>>>>>>=20>>>>>>> I'm using a bug-fixed version of WebDNA (Server 8.?) on=20>>>>>>> Ubuntu 14.04 and I just discovered that [createdate]=20>>>>>>> displays today's date on all files inside a [listfiles]=20>>>>>>> context ... but the [moddate] tag seems to work okay.>>>>>>>=20>>>>>>> Regards, Kenneth Grome WebDNA Solutions=20>>>>>>> http://www.webdnasolutions.com Web Database Systems and=20>>>>>>> Linux Server Management>>> --------------------------------------------------------->>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to>>> the mailing list .>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >>> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us>>> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us>>=20>> --------------------------------------------------------->> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to>> the mailing list .>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us>> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us>>=20> ---------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Sound like an excellent idea.RegardsStuart TremainIDFK Web DevelopmentsAUSTRALIAwebdna@idfk.com.au> On 20 Dec 2014, at 10:39 am, Kenneth Grome =wrote:>=20> [version] just gives me "8.01" which is the same as what I got> before Chris sent me the bug fixed version ... so no, it does not> uniquely specify the build I received.>=20> What I'm suggesting is that WSC always create and record (in their> own internal records if not also on their website) a new build> number for every build they produce -- including builds produced> during testing if necessary, but absolutely before releasing them> to anyone else.>=20> For example, I am thinking about this possibility:>=20> I find a bug and tell them I'm using build 8.02.327. Then all> they have to do is lookup this build number to learn that this> particular build is for the "Server" version (not fastCGI) and> that runs only on Ubuntu 14.04 or later.>=20> Then they know exactly where to start working on a fix and we> don't have to deal with redundant questions on the Talk List about> versions, platforms, Server or FastCGI, etc.>=20> Regards,> Kenneth Grome> WebDNA Solutions> http://www.webdnasolutions.com> Web Database Systems and Linux Server Management>=20>=20> On 12/19/2014 04:34 PM, Stuart Tremain wrote:>> [version] =91should=92 do that>>=20>>=20>> Regards>>=20>> Stuart Tremain>> IDFK Web Developments>> AUSTRALIA>> webdna@idfk.com.au>>=20>>=20>>=20>>=20>>> On 20 Dec 2014, at 9:31 am, Kenneth Grome =wrote:>>>=20>>> I specified "Server" twice, once in the subject and again in the>>> body. But I could not specify the version number (thus the>>> question marks in both the subject and body), here's why:>>>=20>>> Chris sent me the first version/build that was supposed to run on>>> Ubuntu 14.04. I discovered a couple bugs after installing and>>> running it for the first time so I reported these issues. It>>> didn't take him long to fix them both and send me a new build.>>>=20>>> However ...>>>=20>>> The new build did not come with a version number or a build number>>> that I am aware of, so I have no idea how to refer to it -- other>>> than to say that it is the first bug-fixed version built and sent>>> to me after I first used the new Ubuntu 14.04 installer.>>>=20>>> Maybe the take-away here is that WSC can probably do a better job>>> of clearly and uniquely numbering every build they produce. Then>>> we can specify the build number when we have issues to report.>>>=20>>> There's another benefit to uniquely numbering each build too:>>>=20>>> We will never have to specify "Server" or "FastCGI" or platform>>> any more because WSC will immediately know which one we are having>>> problems with simply by looking at the unique build number we give>>> them.>>>=20>>> So now I have a question:>>>=20>>> Isn't it possible to bury a unique build number inside the>>> executable itself, and then run a command that returns that build>>> number?>>>=20>>> It seems to me that Chris gave me instructions for doing this in>>> an earlier version, but as far as I know it is not common>>> knowledge. In fact I have no idea if it would even work on the>>> latest builds -- but if it does we should all learn how to do it>>> -- so we can use a simple command to look up the exact build we>>> are having trouble with.>>>=20>>> Regards,>>> Kenneth Grome>>> WebDNA Solutions>>> http://www.webdnasolutions.com>>> Web Database Systems and Linux Server Management>>>=20>>>=20>>> On 12/19/2014 04:03 PM, Donovan Brooke wrote:>>>> This was fixed way back in the beta FastCGI, then I believe it=20>>>> was fixed in the Server platform as well (off the top of my=20>>>> head).>>>>=20>>>> However, it=92s not impossible that a certain build missed the=20>>>> fix. That=92s why when reporting bugs that you should always>>>> list Server/FastCGI [platform] [version], etc..>>>>=20>>>> Donovan>>>>=20>>>>=20>>>>=20>>>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 3:54 PM, iPhonzie@G =20>>>> wrote:>>>>=20>>>>> [createdate] hasn=92t worked since WebCatalog was ported to=20>>>>> *nix=85 it has always returned the =93last opened date=94 rather=20=>>>>> than the file creation date. I=92m pretty sure I reported this=20>>>>> to Smith Micro a decade ago. I=92m running WebDNA 6, so I>>>>> don=92t know if it was ever fixed in a more recent build.>>>>>=20>>>>> -- Brian Fries Sent with Airmail>>>>>=20>>>>> On December 19, 2014 at 1:40:51 PM, Donovan Brooke=20>>>>> (dbrooke@euca.us) wrote:>>>>>=20>>>>>> Would this be Server or FastCGI?>>>>>>=20>>>>>> Donovan>>>>>>=20>>>>>>=20>>>>>>=20>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Kenneth Grome=20>>>>>> wrote:>>>>>>=20>>>>>>> I'm using a bug-fixed version of WebDNA (Server 8.?) on=20>>>>>>> Ubuntu 14.04 and I just discovered that [createdate]=20>>>>>>> displays today's date on all files inside a [listfiles]=20>>>>>>> context ... but the [moddate] tag seems to work okay.>>>>>>>=20>>>>>>> Regards, Kenneth Grome WebDNA Solutions=20>>>>>>> http://www.webdnasolutions.com Web Database Systems and=20>>>>>>> Linux Server Management>>> --------------------------------------------------------->>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to>>> the mailing list .>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >>> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us>>> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us>>=20>> --------------------------------------------------------->> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to>> the mailing list .>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us>> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us>>=20> ---------------------------------------------------------> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to> the mailing list .> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us> Bug Reporting: support@webdna.us
Stuart Tremain
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Setting up shop (1997)
Multiple prices (1997)
form validator issue (2005)
I'm new be kind (1997)
I found a bug ... (1997)
still having search problem, please help :) (2004)
how to determine the actual file format of an image file? (2002)
Talk List Suggestions (1997)
MATH TIME (1997)
Storing dates (was: Ticket Ordering Question) (2003)
Re:2nd WebCatalog2 Feature Request (1996)
RE: [WebDNA] Still having problems (2008)
Problems getting parameters passed into email. (1997)
Formating Tables w/[founditems] (1998)
Re:E-mailer application times out (1998)
Week # problem (1998)
Online reference (1997)
[WebDNA] Security best practice (2009)
Re[3]: 2nd WebCatalog2 Feature Request (1996)
Same Table Opened Twice (2003)