From: J G Miller on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:40:52 -0500, WLS wrote:

> And that means what exactly? This is a beta version?

No, more of a pre-alpha version.

> If it's the most recent release why does the main site still
> say 1.83 is the current version?

Because 1.83 is the current released stable version.

> As far as I can recall this is the first time I've had software update
> from a repository before the release.

1.9 has not been released yet. What you are getting is the
version 1.9 which is still in development.

Please note the subtle difference between "available" and "released".
From: WLS on
On 02/17/2010 01:56 PM, J G Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:40:52 -0500, WLS wrote:
>
>> And that means what exactly? This is a beta version?
>
> No, more of a pre-alpha version.
>
>> If it's the most recent release why does the main site still
>> say 1.83 is the current version?
>
> Because 1.83 is the current released stable version.
>
>> As far as I can recall this is the first time I've had software update
>> from a repository before the release.
>
> 1.9 has not been released yet. What you are getting is the
> version 1.9 which is still in development.
>
> Please note the subtle difference between "available" and "released".

It would have been nice if the package had been identified as a
pre-alpha development release. I might have passed up on it.

I guess it gets a test tonight, :)

Thanks!
From: J G Miller on
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:04:56 -0500, WLS wrote:

> It would have been nice if the package had been identified as a
> pre-alpha development release. I might have passed up on it.

I get the impression that the Transmission project is well managed
with tight controls on quality, so it is improbable that you will
notice any problems.

> I guess it gets a test tonight, :)

Hope it all goes well which I am sure (97.89%) it will. ;)
From: WLS on
On 02/17/2010 05:19 PM, J G Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:04:56 -0500, WLS wrote:
>
>> It would have been nice if the package had been identified as a
>> pre-alpha development release. I might have passed up on it.
>
> I get the impression that the Transmission project is well managed
> with tight controls on quality, so it is improbable that you will
> notice any problems.
>
>> I guess it gets a test tonight, :)
>
> Hope it all goes well which I am sure (97.89%) it will. ;)

They need to allow you to adjust the number of upload slots per torrent.
The more connections per torrent reduces the upload speed per connection.

I'm back to using qBittorrent v2.1.5 for now.
From: John Bowling on
WLS <rafter22atverizondotnet> wrote:

> I just did a software update and upgraded to Transmission
> 1.90-13.1(x86-64) from the download.opensuse.org-Apps repository.
>
> I am a bit confused because the Transmission web site still shows
> version 1.83 as the latest version.
>
> Has anyone seen that happen before where an update is available before
> it's released on the web site?
>
> I'm not complaining, as it offers tracker editing, magnet links now work
> in Firefox and other improvements.
>

There is something else openSUSE does with updates. With Firefox, they
(apparently) advance the version numbers differently than Mozilla does.
Mozilla Firefox download is now at 3.6 and Firefox on openSUSE is 3.5.6.
And 3.6 has been out there for several months now.

This causes problems with some plugins. If you install the version from
Mozilla using their recommended method, it will NOT change the version
number that is displayed, hence when you go to download plugins, it looks
for 3.5 version plugins that don't work with 3.6.

This arises the question: What version are you really running?
Is it 3.5 plain, or enhanced to be more like 3.6?
3.6 is supposed to start up and display pages a lot faster, yet my 3.5.6
takes some time to start up.