Re: Too many updates
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:23 am
Not.JohnTHaller wrote:Annoying.
TPFC Forums
https://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/
https://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6134
Not.JohnTHaller wrote:Annoying.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Maybe that's the simplest but best solution.I still don't understand why it is not possible to update apps in the database (mainly change their version number) without pushing them in front more then 1-2 times/month?!
Just to clarify to make sure we are on the same page. If for example someone updates an app from 2.0.0 to 2.0.1, the update *will* be reflect in the listing. It just won't:the reason im iffy about this is what if theres a critical update, crashing/bug/security issue with some app and even though someone updates it, because its over its limit it wont get shown,
imo, while too many updates might be annoying for some, something like this might be worse
Specifically because of this, i proposed the "accumulator" - it's also mentioned in the poll about this topic.Firewrath wrote:so if you want to limit the updates, how about a check box or something that allows a critical update to bypass the limit if needed?
yeah, i understand that,Andrew Lee wrote:It just won't:
1) Bubble to the top of the list on the main page i.e. it will remain where it is, which is probably still quite near the top if the last update was recent eg. yesterday.
2) Appear in the RSS feed
I see a few problems with this:Firewrath wrote:what im saying there should be a check box to bypass that and put it at the top of the list,
say an app caused a blue screen when run, and it was last updated to where its on page 2-3 by the time the fix came out, but its passed its update limit,
if the crash is fixed, it would be a critical update, imo, and Should be moved back to the top of the update list for ppl that check TPFC but maybe not the apps home page,
I don't like the idea of "hiding" the updates. The update should be available immediately ... and the database as up-to-date as possiblejoby_toss wrote:What is a "major" and what is a "minor" application update?
I mean ... exactly?
What would the rule that emerges from this difference sound like?