Thanks for your comments! I have tried to group them and present my replies in a Q&A format.

Q: I have updated the entry. Why isn't it showing up in the front page?
A: Only version changes pushes the entry to the front page.

Q: Is there a history of editing?
A: Yes, the history of editing is kept in the database.

Q: Do you plan to display the history of editing?
A: Yes, it's on my todo list. Changes can be highlighted in a different color.

Q: How easy is it to revert to a previous version in case of a bad change?
A: Very easy. A single SQL statement.

Q:Can every update be posted in the "Portable Freeware Update" forum?
A: No!!!! One of the original aim of adding this function was to reduce traffic to that forum. Now simple version changes can be made directly, leaving more complex discussion for the forum. The RSS feed should be used to keep track of all updates.

Q: Given that there are so many changes, can you increase the update history?
A: OK, I will get that done, but it will take a bit of time (gotta change the code to display "..." in the right places, instead of displaying all the pages). I have also updated the RSS to display the last 100 items instead of only 30.

Q: There are too many updates in the RSS feed!!!
A: You should be able to set a filter in your RSS reader to filter out all entries starting with "[Update]".

Q: I'd suggest limiting it to users with more than 50 forum posts, if that's possible.
A: Yes, that should be possible. I think it's a good suggestion, and I will get it done.

Hope I didn't miss anything.

Hey Andrew,

Maybe add an editor's note field for internal usage.
This is so we can say what we updated, etc; this will help you (and others) when the edit history feature is added.

[quote="Lupo73"]I'm considering to implement this support to the Lupo updater. The problem is that adding the checking for new updates is easy, but implement a feature able to correctly extract and update a software is many more complex and may needs to store software on PFC in a standard package.[/quote]

great news Lupo73! i've been thinking about your concern to the extraction and update as well, and i agree that TPFC should have a standard package, the package i think probable is *.zip, because most portable package are already in zip format, and windows os supports zip. For the *.exe that needed to be extracted, we can ask the authors to zip them, or ask for permission to distribute it, already extracted and in zip format.

A question: on TPFC I remembered that only in special cases software were updated to the last beta version. With the new Editing support are published updates to new beta versions too and sometimes also without reporting that are beta releases. These cases are ok or is it better if I correct them to the last stable version?

My vote would be for either of the following,

1. The version number in the database could be something like:

2.12.1 (stable) OR 3.0.05 (beta)

I slightly prefer this option, because then updates to the beta would get pushed to the RSS feed.


2. The database could refer to the latest stable version, with betas possibly mentioned and linked in the description.


Of course, there would still be exceptions - it's new and only available in beta, or it's no longer developed and the last release was a beta that's been used by lots of folks for years, etc.

We also need to create some guidelines for updating.

I just noticed one listing that updated the version number, but the extraction instructions were the same when it needed to be updated as well.

The offending listing is CDex:
http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=275

I didn't want to update it because the ZIP package is more appealing to me.

---

When we update listings, make sure that everything is updated and not just the version number!
This includes the uncompressed filesize, instructions and "stealthability" ;)

OK, I have updated the code to restrict the edit function to members who have posted at least 50 messages, as suggested. Currently there are only about 70 members in the database who fit the fill.



Can we restrict frequent betas to the TPFC Update Forum? For most projects, betas frequencies are typically very short, and I would hate to clog up the mainline RSS feed with these entries. Putting the stable + beta numbers in the version field will have the same effect (of clogging up the mainline RSS feed).

We might make exceptions for apps that hasn't been updated for years, but has a new stable beta.

Good solution, even if now I can't make updates (even with plus than 200 posts with my account), a message says "You do not have sufficient rights to access this function."
I have an additional proposal about it: for users that have less than 50 posts you could think to disable the Edit button at all or to write in the message an extra line that says "You need to be an active user of the forum to Edit our database."

I think you could also create a page with a list of the 5-10 most important rules to make updates, to report there info like the restriction of stable releases only.

The change took away my editing privileges as well.

Having beta updates posted only to the forum would actually be my preference as well, perhaps you could add it to the instructions for the "version number" text box. A "how (and when) to edit database entries" guide would be nice, but you've covered most of it in your detailed description of each text box. Perhaps you could flesh out some more guidelines at the top of the edit page.

Another suggestion is in the section labeled 'How to extract:' have predefined statements for consistency on the correct wording. E.G. you find that most have 'Download the ZIP package and extract to any folder of your choice. Launch APPNAME.exe.'

Other examples I have found in the latest updates:

Download the ZIP package and extract to any folder of your choice. Create a file called THEFILE in the same folder with the following content:
EDIT HERE
---------------------------
Download the single EXE file to a folder of your choice. Launch APPNAME.exe
---------------------------
Download the single EXE file to a folder of your choice. Launch the program by using "APPNAME.exe /CMD"
---------------------------
Download the self-extracting EXE package and extract to a folder of your choice. Launch APPNAME.exe.

It was a stupid bug on my part. I have squashed it.



I have hidden the "Edit" link from all non-qualified users.



Done that as well.

Keep the good stuff flowing!

BTW, I have added some guidelines in the edit page. I will add to it as and when we make up more rules!

I have just implemented this as well.

There seems to be a bug/change with the text box's, any next line spacing will simple be wrapped after your press submit. e.g. http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=132 'Another alternative is X-Firefox.' used to be on the next line down.

In terms of the progress of this site you seem to have made some very radical changes (for the better), but will you still keep the submission process the same? Or will you be looking at implementing a new submission system?

Also what should be done about the entries that have Geocities websites and are no longer down-loadable via 3rd party download sites?

I'm not sure but I think as a result of this change (as I don't remember there ever being a problem before) a slight bug has crept in.

When using the search function on the homepage, if more than 5 results are returned the "Page: 1 2 etc" links do not contain the search term (the ?q= element of the URL).

Using 'notepad' as an example search, appending the page to the URL (http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?q=notepad becomes http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?q=notepad&p=2) allows viewing of the second page of results.

I also notice that the page item is not bounds-checked. Follow this link for an example: http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?q=notepad&p=5

EDIT: As a side note... has the link anchor been removed from the logo image? Or am I only imagining it was ever there? It makes sense to have that as a permanent link back to the home page, in my opinion.

EDIT 2: Having just used the function, I also note a minor typo. "Members should test new versions for portability being posting an update, unless it's a very minor update" should probably read "Members should test new versions for portability before posting an update, unless it's a very minor update". Sorry for nit-picking.