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. Regards Stuart Tremain IDFK Web Developments AUSTRALIA webdna@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. Regards Stuart Tremain IDFK Web Developments AUSTRALIA webdna@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:
Release of 2.01? (1997)
blank page from template (1997)
Robert Minor duplicate mail (1997)
WC2b15 File Corruption (1997)
Show shoppingcart after remove last item (1997)
Transfer of data from Invoice to thank you templates (1998)
Country & Ship-to address & other fields ? (1997)
Re:2nd WebCatalog2 Feature Request (1996)
SV: Mass Mail (2000)
Problems with [Applescript] (1997)
RE: [WebDNA] Serial numbers and pricing for WebDNA 7.0 (2011)
passing cart value (2003)
[ModDate] & [ModTime] ? (1997)
WebCatalog NT beta 18 problem (1997)
Sorting by date (1997)
Error - Search / Showif (2000)
External Images (1998)
HELP WITH DATES (1997)
counting characters and/or words (1997)
Buying sans cart (1997)