My version number in the about section is 18.104.22.168 and check for updates says that it is up to date yet finning out a second bug, the Version the bug appeared drop down box has version numbers up to 22.214.171.124. Im very confused.
Operating System: Windows 7
Version: 126.96.36.199 release
The dropdown selection is correct and has nothing to-do with this bug.
But since I notice that LO 188.8.131.52 did indeed not find the 184.108.40.206 update I'm setting this to new and OS to ALL since I noticed this behavior on OS X.
By default, we are conservative and, as a policy, don't prod people to update people from x.y.z to x.(y+1).0, but "only" to x.y.(z+1), x.y.(z+2), etc. We leave some time for the x.(y+1) branch to stabilise first. Later, when x.(y+1).3 or x.(y+1).4 or something like that is out, we prod people to update to x.(y+1).
However, if you want to run the latest and greatest (~bleeding edge, we are always happy to have early adopters), feel free to download 4.1.0 and install it.
Something should at least popup saying a new version is available. Whether it be a stable version or a beta. That is very unprofessional and made me use an outdated version for YEARS.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Something should at least popup saying a new version is available.
You get the notification when the new version is recommended for
people that run the version you are running.
Right now, people running 3.5 or older or 3.6.6 or older get a notification
for update to 3.6.7.
The people running 4.0.3 or older get notification for 4.0.4.
We are currently discussing when exactly to notify people running
3.6 (or older) to upgrade to 4.x; will probably happen in the next
> Whether it be a stable version or a beta.
I'd be afraid that not all people notified for a beta version
would understand the beta status. However, maybe we could put
an option (defaulting to OFF) like "always update to latest
and greatest" and/or a notion like Mozilla's "release channels".
Hmm... yes, this would make a lot of sense; we could have the
following update policies:
- recommended (the current one)
- latest release
- latest rc
- latest beta
> That is very unprofessional and made me
> use an outdated version for YEARS.
Years? 4.1 is out since merely a few weeks. I must misunderstand
you. Care to explain?
I had assumed that version was out for a long time but I hadn't known about it so guess it was only a few weeks.
Lionel, I see the idea behind the update scheme. Yet it's rather confusing for users. If you think in Stable, RC, Beta channels than 4.1 is a stable release yet 4.0.x users won't see the update.
I find that very confusing. Imo having different channels would be a great thing, but then again it would not work with the current update policy due to stable chan inconsistencies.
But adding a checkbox for RC and or beta channel would be great.