HMGforum.com

IMHO, we can install a wiki site so that our members can also edit the site easily.

Sounds good to me.
Thanks.
CalScot

Rathinagiri wrote:IMHO, we can install a wiki site so that our members can also edit the site easily.

+1

Rathinagiri wrote:IMHO, we can install a wiki site so that our members can also edit the site easily.

+1

Rathinagiri wrote:IMHO, we can install a wiki site so that our members can also edit the site easily.

+1

PS : I hope easily don't means freely

Best regards

CalScot wrote:might be a good place to have a section which has a directory of downloadable Patches for each version..//.. we get to having 3.1.5.a, 3.1.5.b, etc., having to search through posts on this forum to try to make sure that you've found every patch for any version is not the easiest thing

It is an exellent idea too ! I have already appointed for this problem. I think Claudio you should release all patches for each version with the nomenclature appointed as CalScot done it. This will helps to indentify and see how many path must be applied to each version during HMG growing up...
And also an special section of Downloads vinculated with each version and its own patches, would be to have soon as possible. What do you think Rathinagiri ?

Yes. Soon I will try to list the links of all the previous versions of HMG.

Rathinagiri wrote:Yes. Soon I will try to list the links of all the previous versions of HMG.

Sorry, my opinion is a bit different

All significant versions / releases of HMG are download-able here.

Old versions and patchs are causing misleading and repetitive confusions and errors for many user / member.

I guess many users / member didn't upgraded to 3.1.5 and continues old versions ( mostly 1.0.46 )
and this situation too is causing many misunderstanding

So, IMHO we need only for now ( at least ) a stable last version, such as HMG 3.1.5 ( Stable ), instead of HMG 3.1.5 ( Test )

Everything is for HMG

I always keep on the last version, always updated. For me I also believe there is not reason to stay with old versions, but seems there are a lot of users wish to keep not upgraded.

Probably they have some reasons whch we are unknown.

I wish to belive to keep old versions, just for historical register.
For example, I have seen at version 2.xx and old ones which some examples like BROWSE are not present at 3.xx versions. Of course the HMG is improving forward and some components are becoming obsolets, but probably there are someone who is still using.
I do not care, but IMHO I have not problem to exist. But if there is not any reason to keep old versions, according colleagues opinion explaining their reasons, for me not problem at all.

Seems also some still prefer to use ANSI mode, I do know why.

But let them to answer this...

Hi Rathinagiri

CalScot wrote:I would have no objection to switching to Github (or some other) as the primary source, but think the following should be considered:

1. Many (CNet and others) seem to now employ the same, questionable method. It seems that you just need to be very careful doing any download these days, and not just keep hitting the Next button if you want to stay clear of unwanted, nuisance installations.
Should those who would be HMG users be more aware of this than a user who might just have been prompted to download a product to speed up their PC or clean up their registry?

I agree with this.
Personally I had no problems with SF, maybe because I'm careful, and instead I heard same problems with the Softpedia and many others (Jave have ask toolbar I remember).

You should hear them too. Example http://sourceforge.net/blog/advertising ... criticism/

To me that's fine if download stay on the site of HMG Forum http://hmgforum.com/site/ (as GIMP). The important thing is not to lose users and international contributors for the excellent HMG.
What you do to me is always good!
+1 (but old version remain in SF?)

regards