Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AdamK

µTorrent 3.4 RC

Recommended Posts

Heh..I got 3.4.30379 build.......

Yes, that's the Bundles test branch.

I will have devs pushing test branches add them to the Changelog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somebody please give a permanent link to the latest build.

Always in by sig below... (30379)

Yes, that's the Bundles test branch.

When I can still get in there 30324 and 30345, and 30378 is hard to get - I'd say that your 'test-bundle' system is not only broken, but abuses the good will of the people here... Just post a direct link :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that your 'test-bundle' system is not only broken, but abuses the good will of the people here

Good will? you mean free alpha testing work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, rafi, but it takes me to the 338 build.

Yeah... 338 is probably better... Link fixed...

BTW, I see very high CPU load with this build when seeding... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that your 'test-bundle' system is not only broken' date=' but abuses the good will of the people here[/quote']

Good will? you mean free alpha testing work.

Isn't it the result of that good will ? ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Fix: utp seeding

- Fix: gui.show_status_icon_in_dl_list was not showing status icons

Thanks for these fixes in the 30379 Alpha build.

Another minor problem is when the Files tab is selected the "Scanned" column doesn't stay unticked or hidden....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another minor problem is when the Files tab is selected the "Scanned" column doesn't stay unticked or hidden....

Reported in build 29985

Just as added info, the scanned column reappears on any action that requires a RedrawWindow call for the GUI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I can still get in there 30324 and 30345, and 30378 is hard to get - I'd say that your 'test-bundle' system is not only broken, but abuses the good will of the people here... Just post a direct link :(

Yes, the system we are using right now is "broken" - not in a technical sense, but in a social sense.

It is broken for what we are doing right now, which is beta testing with a wide variety of expert users.

Users are used to a beta tracks that follow a linear change path.

e.g. Even with the huge number of changes that Chrome pushes, they only have 4 tracks

Of course, their change tracking and regression testing is way more complex than ours.

There are two main types of testing we are doing

* Crash rate spot checks - make sure a branch's crash rate is still low

* New feature development

I think we have to do the spot checks without tester interaction - no one is going to download and test a build whose changelog is "feature in development, test stability"

I agree that the new feature branches should be exposed directly to testers.

Here are some things we are considering (but not committing to):

** Opening a separate Forum Thread for each major feature

* Upsides: testers know exactly what they are getting, and have a place to discuss only that feature

* May be very short-lived

* Downsides: Will we get enough testers on that feature?

** Incorporating the changelog notification into uTorrent itself

* I like this one a lot, because the changelog is right there - no mismatches

** Incorporating feedback into uTorrent itself

* This could save us all tons of time, because if the user agrees, we could send back the version number, and other state that will help find a bug.

What you are not seeing behind the scenes is that:

* We are releasing a lot more often - about 7 times as often as before, and still increasing.

* We are testing things faster, and more independently of each other

* uTorrent's crash rate has gone down and *stayed low* I want to be able to make changes to uTorrent without wasting everyone's time with stability regressions

In short, the new system sucks for betas, but is awesome for:

- Keeping uTorrent stable

- Working on more than one thing at a time, and only merging stable features

So all we have to do now is fix it for betas. Help me by telling me your ideal system, and we'll see what we can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
by telling me your ideal system

It was "ideal" as it was before - "linear" with direct links...

Ok, so is that a vote for a separate Forum Thread per feature, or for only exposing features to the testers one at a time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-- 2013-12-03: Version 3.4 (build 30378)

- Fix: Incorrectly applied rate limit state affected utp

- Fix: utp seeding

- Fix: gui.show_status_icon_in_dl_list was not showing status icons

- Fix: After deleting a set of torrents, others would become selected

- Change: Disable "Stream" button in torrent list. It will re-appear after extensive testing

where can we download it???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so is that a vote for a separate Forum Thread per feature, or for only exposing features to the testers one at a time?

Thread per-release.... Whatever is intended to be in the next build to be released (*all* the bug-fixes+features) put it in the "Beta" thread. If there is a "track" for a release after that, sure, make a thread for it. All this is as it used to be, for example the 3.3.2 Beta + 3.4 Alpha at the time.

And for new features (like the "labels") , don't be sp "secretive"... :P , just post the spec/design/feature "help". Otherwise - it makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-- 2013-12-03: Version 3.4 (build 30378)

- Fix: Incorrectly applied rate limit state affected utp

- Fix: utp seeding

- Fix: gui.show_status_icon_in_dl_list was not showing status icons

- Fix: After deleting a set of torrents' date=' others would become selected

- Change: Disable "Stream" button in torrent list. It will re-appear after extensive testing[/quote']

where can we download it???

From my sig... :P It'll be 1$ please... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, give an example of creating a file for torrent's update. For a better understanding,

show it in the form of a standart torrent file with its update link and the following processes

( copy the update link, paste in utorrent3.4, update the torrent file).

Previously the authors of utorrent discussed this option and gave some links for sites's pages

with examples of updating

Almost all of them don't open now exept one with an update link. This link has the code:

{"message": "no update","success": true}

In the instruction for this option everything is in another way:

"announce": ...,"info": {"originator": com.bittorrent's DER encoded x.509 certificate,"update-url": "http://www.bittorrent.com/update-feed",...},"signatures": {"com.bittorrent": {"signature": info dict signature,},...}}

I want the option works on my computer in a proper way and don't understand what I should

choose or make.

---------------------------

Please, give a piece of advice. Can I create a link for isp.fqdn and place it in 127.0.0.1.Some sites

don't write tracker's addresses in magnet links, for example btdigg.org. If I can create a link

for isp.fqdn, all running torrents in my torrent-client can get global tracker's address ( for instance udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80/announce or any other)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As earlier in this thread

... run a CLOSED Alpha/Beta delivery system with a REAL bug tracking system, a seperate login ... for the users who want to assist.

The people who do testing and provide feedback do not need to be fed automated updates via a semi-working CDN, we (as in the global we) already know how to load a new version or regress several builds for comparative checks. To have the general run of users looking at feature testing is asking for a slew of questions that will only serve to confuse, (see about six posts up regarding empty icon holder). A version should ONLY go generally publicly live at late beta or Release Candidate stage. By doing that should also help reduce the critiscm from indexing sites and tracker operators regarding "buggy" versions creating problems on their systems.

Having a 'proper' bug tracking system also provides for a feature testing environment rather than using forum threads, which, if open to all members WILL get sidetracked/hijacked/spammed and will simply make moderation that bit more time consuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, give an example of creating a file for torrent's update. For a better understanding,

show it in the form of a standart torrent file with its update link and the following processes

( copy the update link, paste in utorrent3.4, update the torrent file).

Previously the authors of utorrent discussed this option and gave some links for sites's pages

with examples of updating

Almost all of them don't open now exept one with an update link. This link has the code:

{

"message": "no update",

"success": true

}

In the instruction for this option everything is in another way:

"announce": ...,

"info": {

"originator": com.bittorrent's DER encoded x.509 certificate,

"update-url": "http://www.bittorrent.com/update-feed",

...

},

"signatures": {

"com.bittorrent": {

"signature": info dict signature,

},

...

}

}

I want the option works on my computer in a proper way and don't understand what I should

choose or make.

Hi Grey Rat,

That is a great topic for the bt dev list:

http://groups.google.com/a/bittorrent.com/group/bt-developers/

If you join that list and ask the same question, I will put you in contact with the person you need.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok' date=' so is that a vote for a separate Forum Thread per feature, or for only exposing features to the testers one at a time?[/quote']

Thread per-release.... Whatever is intended to be in the next build to be released (*all* the bug-fixes+features) put it in the "Beta" thread. If there is a "track" for a release after that, sure, make a thread for it. All this is as it used to be, for example the 3.3.2 Beta + 3.4 Alpha at the time.

And for new features (like the "labels") , don't be sp "secretive"... :P , just post the spec/design/feature "help". Otherwise - it makes no sense.

Ok, so it sounds like you would prefer a process like this: Introduce features 1-by-1 in the alpha channel. If they check out, then add them to the beta channel. Don't expose beta testers to parallel lines of development.

BTW, what we won't move back to is: pile up a ton of features/fixes/changes in one release (e.g. "3.5"), move that to beta, pile in more changes, move that to stable, pile in even more ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pile up a ton of features/fixes/changes

Well, there is only one "real" new feature in 3.4 - called "labels" and still no one knows for sure how it supposes to behave ;) I don't see how not having "tons" of them has improved this .... ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, what we won't move back to is: pile up a ton of features/fixes/changes in one release (e.g. "3.5"), move that to beta, pile in more changes, move that to stable, pile in even more ...

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.

Don't expose beta testers to parallel lines of development.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's hard enough for BT devs to go a strait line Alpha->beta->RC ... Complicating things will end up with them running around stray builds... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.