ciaobaby

3.4 a release candidate??????? Is it April the 1st already???

Yes, it should not matter how many you use, they should use their respective folder, no? That would be the expected behaviour and IS the case for all the 3.3.n versions I tested, but with two instances of 3.4 on the same host machine it does NOT it appears that the path to resume.dat is hardcoded to $APPDATA%/utorrent. even ehen I set it on a different drive 3.4 still uses %appdata%/utorrent/resume.dat rather than a 'local' copy. I only found it because I wanted several side by side v3.4.0.30409 comparisons to see what affected the "network pulse" amplitude or frequency. But it 'broke' the running install when doing so.

Is that with a single instance running though?

Something to look to at is running 3.4 clients (any build) as multiple encapsulated instances. (Yes Rafi, I know it's an "Edge Use Case" ). While it will use settings.dat in the local directory it reads and writes to resume.dat in %appdata%/utorrent/ which really does leave the %APPDATA% installation FUBARed. ver 3.3.x will use a local resume.dat (tested back to 3.3.0.29730) Starting with /NOINSTALL && || /RECOVER makes no difference to this behaviour.

Actually I have several different versions and builds running with no jobs loaded (You know the "edge" use case that nobody will ever run)

It's monday morning

Not as pronounced, simply because my client is averaging ~60kB/s (3 seeds on my long suffering download whoo hoo!) so the graph 'x' axis max is 75kB/s, your graph is maximum 'x' is 12kB/s so the 'dogtooth' waveform is more noticeable.

Not necessarily. If you look at the Moby content which was a recent "featured" download, there was also a component of that where a particular action had to be taken for it to be "unlocked" before you could download it. The aim of BitTorrent Inc generally, is to become THE leading content delivery provider selling services (the user base) to all manner of content creators, this has been a goal for several years, and is declared quite blatently on the website. This known goal is one of the reason why I am surprised when many of you start whinging about advertising and "featured" material. You ARE the test cases for BitTorrent Inc's steady progress towards the conquest of the world. Assuming Google doesn't get there first. [h]"BitTorrent - Delivering the World's Content"[/h] Yesterday "Mutable" torrents, Today "Unlocking" content, Tomorrow, Paid for torrent downloading, probably in the form of subscription fees for "Lockable", "Mutable" BitTorrent downloads.

ciaobaby.info/utorrent/3.4/uTorrent-3.4.0.30409-beta.zip

Last line in Rafi's signature.

Caching (temporarily storing) of downloaded blocks, before they are commited to disk (Flushing) and/or storing blocks being requested/uploaded to reduce disk reads Four times as much temporary storage BUT 'more' is not always 'better' (or necessary) where the laws of diminishing returns apply.

I know, and it makes the whole idea of "beta testing" a complete joke because no one knows which 'bug' is going to be making another curtain call. Multiple forks / branches should should not be getting this far, only the main trunk builds should go out a public betas.

Label counts are fixed in this build. Although the status icons have gone AWOL once again though. You put your left arm in. You take your left arm out, in, out, in, out and shake it all about!

URL fails with a circular redirect.

FUBARred label counts are back in build 30389. You know, .... I had this quaint idea that concurrent versioning systems were supposed to STOP previously fixed bugs from re-occuring in later builds. Though I have the strange feeling, based on the the current wave of uTorrent builds, that you wrote your own CVS.

That is the content delivery system NOT the automatic update system built in to the uTorrent client, do not confuse the patently obvious problems with the CVS and CDN feeding out apparently random builds with the working automatic client update system. The automatic update system will ONLY deliver a build that IS later than the client that is already running so is NOT an issue for users. The CDN for manual updates of Alpha/Beta builds is however an entirely different story, but I have yet to encounter an 'automatic' update that provided an 'older' version for installation even on 3.4 builds.

Agreed .. But that is your choice and because you have chosen to run a beta version you SHOULD expect to find "issues", or at least not be surprised when something unexpected occurs, but that STILL does not equate to a staggered being a problem. Beta versions are NOT stable or production versions, they ARE for extended test purposes in multiple operating environments, so by choosing to run one you are a tester.

I fail to see how or why a system that works as intended is a problem, I realise that it is relatively unusual for that to be the case, but for the overwhelming majority of uTorrent users it is simply NOT an issue. Obviously it is less than ideal for users who are running Alpha or Beta versions and need to be up to date on the latest build, but the "cutting edge users" are NOT whom the update system is meant to serve, it is the average user, the ones who need the 'pointy', 'clicky' WIMP enviroment of Windows to even type their name into a text file that the update system is for. And only the minuscule percentage that post here with a problem and are asked to update even notice that it does not always update on request. The rest just continue blithely on and occasionally uTorrent pops a dialogue in front of them that says "A new build of uTorrent is available, N.N.nnnnn would you ..... etc. etc."

But it is NOT a problem. The update system IS working EXACTLY as it is intended to work, where's the problem with that??

Certainly, but it does not "irritate" the majority of users ... because the update staggering is transparent to 99.9% of users, it is only the relatively few users that use Help -> Check for Updates that even notice that updates do not happen right on cue.

No it's been 'staggered' for a long while. http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?pid=713538#p713538 Normal practice for potentially high volume updates.

Suggestion: Instead of removing the graphic for jobs that cannot be streamed and leaving an empty cell, replace it with "Unavailable" or similar. GUI design 101 "Do NOT leave the users guessing". A.K.A. the K.I.S.S. principle.

http://forum.utorrent.com/viewtopic.php?id=144446 'Nuff said on allowing the general run of the mill users and beta test versions methinks!

That is exactly why alpha and beta versions should be isolated from the "public" update system until they are at RC stage. As willing volunteers, the people running alpha and beta version are expecting to find faults, that is why "we" run them.

The 'normal' process for a CVS would be for a build number increment for "bug fixing" and/or minor adjustments. A minor version (X.n) increment for additional features (or a bug fix "rollup") using double figures for the minor version. Major version increment for reworking/rewrites of existing. That shouldn't be a problem PROVIDED the development lines and changes are documented so the tester are aware of what needs testing.The build delivery system should be more like the Linux/Open Source model where a range of builds are available, that way regression testing to find the start point of a problem becomes possible without individual keeping a historical archive of versions and builds.