Regarding the PM4Linux-installer:readme-work branch

Support and discussions for the x86/x64 Linux version of Pale Moon.

Moderators: trava90, satrow

squarefractal

Regarding the PM4Linux-installer:readme-work branch

Unread post by squarefractal » 2015-03-02, 14:03

(This thread is mainly aimed at the Linux maintainer, "trava90"):
I've noticed that you have made a few commits to the Linux installer under the readme-work branch and have some questions and suggestions to make:
  • For all the version numbers that you want to put over all the place, you may want to not put the actual version number everywhere, but some string like __VERSION__ that would be replaced at the point of compilation. This approach is already taken for strings like the URL, and it'll actually make your life easier when releasing a version.
  • Is there really a need to put the readme into the installer script, since it's already there in the archive? Once someone figures out how to proceed with the install, the readme is useless, so I don't see the point.
    The readme viewing does not work anyway, since the option is named with a capital letter "Readme" whereas you check with the smaller letter "readme" ;)
  • Nitpick: In userdocs/README, I think it's fine that the document uses a first level Markdown heading since its the main heading.
    It got me thinking... if its already Markdown, why distribute it as plain text instead of an HTML document? But there's a downside too: what if the user doesn't have a browser available? It's your call.
  • Nitpick: In userdocs/README, it should be "ask" instead of "as" :)

User avatar
trava90
Contributing developer
Contributing developer
Posts: 1559
Joined: 2013-05-20, 18:19
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Regarding the PM4Linux-installer:readme-work branch

Unread post by trava90 » 2015-03-03, 01:24

Thanks for the tips/suggestions, they are appreciated! :) The branch I created is actually just a temporary branch, nothing committed to it is by any means finalized or will even be used in the next version of the installer. I've been thinking of a few improvements I'd like to make to the installer over the last few days, and I've commited some "rough draft" ideas to it until I have more time to sit down and actually commit final versions to the master branch (at which point the other branches will be deleted). So I guess you could say I'm using the branch as a "notepad" of sorts.
squarefractal wrote:For all the version numbers that you want to put over all the place, you may want to not put the actual version number everywhere, but some string like __VERSION__ that would be replaced at the point of compilation. This approach is already taken for strings like the URL, and it'll actually make your life easier when releasing a version.
I'm not entirely sure yet where all I will have the version number appear. I added it to so many places just so I could visualize it a little better. I do not intend to keep nearly that many references to it in the final version. Thanks for the tip, if it will remain in enough places to be worth it I will use the _VERSION_ string.
squarefractal wrote:Is there really a need to put the readme into the installer script, since it's already there in the archive? Once someone figures out how to proceed with the install, the readme is useless, so I don't see the point.
My original thought was to add an option to the installer to view the readme. Reason being that at the bottom there is a "support" section with links to the SourceForge wiki as well as the forum. It may not be necessary, but I thought it might be good to include it as I know there are people who will just run programs, and read documentation later. If they were to just run the installer without reading the readme, and run into a problem, the option to view the readme will be right there without having to go back to their file manager to open it.
squarefractal wrote:Nitpick: In userdocs/README, I think it's fine that the document uses a first level Markdown heading since its the main heading.
It got me thinking... if its already Markdown, why distribute it as plain text instead of an HTML document? But there's a downside too: what if the user doesn't have a browser available? It's your call.
I prefer to leave it as a text document. If I'm trying to install a browser, I don't want to have to use another browser to open the readme file to read about installing the browser I want.
squarefractal wrote:Nitpick: In userdocs/README, it should be "ask" instead of "as" :)
Thanks for catching! Spelling was never my best subject. ;)

Locked