Update of submission editor to use BBCode

Andrew Lee · **Joined:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am **Posts:** 1878

I wanted to write a migration script, but the wide differences made that impossible.

eg.

Quote:

A 64-bit version is available (within the folder).

Quote:

A 64-bit version is available (within the zip64 subfolder).

Quote:

A 64-bit version is available (within the x64 subfolder).

Quote:

EditPad's installer now automatically installs a 64-bit version of EditPad on 64-bit Windows.

Quote:

Installer includes 32-bit and 64-bit version.

Some of them might not even be applicable to be included in the new field and would still have to be included in the description (eg. when the 64-bit version is included in a subfolder in the package).

So I think it is best to update this on a case-by-case basis and populate the new field only where it makes sense. The other entries can be left as they are.

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

Is this problem related to the recent changes?

Andrew Lee · **Joined:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am **Posts:** 1878

Yes. Fixed!

Thanks for letting me know.

Checker · **Posted:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:15 pm

procyon wrote:

IMHO, don't bother you with that. Affected entries can wait theirs next update.

I'm almost done :wink:

Checker · **Posted:** Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:18 pm

Checker wrote:

BTW: I noticed, that this thread does not show up at "Recent forum posts".
Is this intentionally :?:

@ Andrew Lee: Thanks for fixing :wink:

Ruby · **Joined:** Sat Sep 05, 2009 6:35 pm **Posts:** 287

Andrew Lee wrote:

Some of them might not even be applicable to be included in the new field and would still have to be included in the description (eg. when the 64-bit version is included in a subfolder in the package).

So I think it is best to update this on a case-by-case basis and populate the new field only where it makes sense. The other entries can be left as they are.

I came across something similar; wasn't sure how to handle it.

I just updated the entry for Dev-C++

IDE stand-alone portable pkg - 1.7 MB Download (~8 MB on disk)

IDE MinGW32 portable pkg- 16.5 MB Download (~172 MB on disk)

IDE MinGW64 (TDM-GCC) portable pkg - 26.1 MB (~274 MB on disk)

I changed the file size (description) to mirror the SA IDE (8MB) and the download link to the 'Portable' download folder at SF; which has all flavors.

Here's a quote from the project dev: http://orwelldevcpp.blogspot.com/

Quote:

Choosing between 32bit and 64bit
...
There is no single reason to download the 32bit version except for maybe file size, marginally longer compiling time, or in case you have to use that specific compiler for any reason (regression problems for example).

You can force 32bit compiles by selecting the profile 'TDM-GCC 32bit' in the compiler options.

http://orwelldevcpp.blogspot.com/

-JR-

Checker · **Posted:** Sun Jun 24, 2012 11:37 am

I just noticed, that a lot of entries show up now with: "Unicode support:"
No additional "Yes" or "No" :!:

BTW: After updating the version number of Q-Dir it shows up like:
Unicode support: , there are two version available: ANSI and Unicode. The Unicode version only works on Win2K/XP/Vista/7.

I'm unable to set it back to "Yes" :!:

I helped myself by including the "Yes" in the text-field.

Andrew Lee · **Joined:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am **Posts:** 1878

@Checker: Thanks for letting me know. The bug has been fixed. I have also updated Q-Dir to account for this fix.

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

Checker wrote:

BTW: After updating the version number of Q-Dir it shows up like:
Unicode support: , there are two version available: ANSI and Unicode. The Unicode version only works on Win2K/XP/Vista/7.

I modified a couple of entries this way as a workaround for the problem you've mentioned here, until Mr. Lee could fix it.
Instead of

Quote:

YesThere are two version available: ANSI and Unicode. The Unicode version only works on Win2K/XP/Vista/7.

it showed

Quote:

Yes, there are two version available: ANSI and Unicode. The Unicode version only works on Win2K/XP/Vista/7.

SYSTEM · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:48 am

BBCode is broken in the main feed.

Andrew Lee · **Joined:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am **Posts:** 1878

@SYSTEM: Fixed! Thanks for reporting this.

Checker · **Posted:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:25 pm

Look at the "Stealth [?]:"-entry of AIMP :!:

Presently:

Quote:

NoWrites to registry if run with admin rights. See this forum thread.

Should be:

Quote:

No. Writes to registry if run with admin rights. See this forum thread.

Same problem like we had with the "Unicode support:"-entry.

Andrew Lee · **Joined:** Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am **Posts:** 1878

@Checker: Fixed! Thanks for reporting this.

Checker · **Posted:** Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:52 am

Thank you

lautrepay · **Joined:** Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:31 am **Posts:** 646

I thought it was my browser installation, but now I've confirmed that, since the implementation of the BBCode, there are problems with some edition functions when using Firefox 13.x (or Palemoon12.02 or Seamonkey 2.10.x). For example: no text is entered in the respective field when I double-click a "Category" or "Additional features" item (this problem also occurs using Internet Explorer); and nothing happens when I click a "License" or "How to extract" item.
These issues don't affect the stable versions of Opera and Chromium, and are resolved using Firefox 14.x beta.
Is there a problem a problem with the current Firefox?
Maybe related with this bug fixed in v.14 beta: hover regression when an element's class name is set by Javascript?

Update of submission editor to use BBCode

Who is online