release notes 0.11: add osx upgrader info #6212

jonasschnelli commented at 12:12 PM on June 1, 2015: contributor

No description provided.

release notes 0.11: add osx upgrader info 9f27c6303a

in doc/release-notes.md:None in 9f27c6303a

  19 | @@ -20,6 +20,11 @@ shut down (which might take a few minutes for older versions), then run the
  20 |  installer (on Windows) or just copy over /Applications/Bitcoin-Qt (on Mac) or
  21 |  bitcoind/bitcoin-qt (on Linux).
  22 |  
  23 | +**Mac Upgrader Notice:** Bitcoin-Core 0.11 uses a new application bundle name on osx
  24 | +(renamed to Bitcoin-Core from Bitcoin-Qt). You should therefore delete
  25 | +/Applications/Bitcoin-Qt after copy over of the new /Applications/Bitcoin-Core
  26 | +application bundle.
  27 | +

laanwj commented at 12:15 PM on June 1, 2015:

Ugh, can't this be automated some way? Will people end up with two versions installed?

jonasschnelli commented at 12:17 PM on June 1, 2015:

The os doesn't handle this automatically. We could add something within the QT startup but i think it would be critical and risky. Some users might also like to keep the old version.

laanwj commented at 1:04 PM on June 1, 2015:

I agree that is even messier. I think the rename we did is a mistake if this means the user needs to do a manual action. People will accidentally keep using the wrong version. We've had this on windows at some point, too.

jonasschnelli commented at 1:19 PM on June 1, 2015:

Hmm... right. It is not ideal. But either we rename the app now, with the consequence, that the user needs to delete the old app (now we are in version 0.11 which implies that such things could be necessary) or we keep the name Bitcoin-Qt.app as application bundle name. I have to admit that it is inconsistent at the moment (OSX: "Bitcoin-Core", win/linux: "bitcoin-qt" [name of the runnable application from the enduser perspective]).

jonasschnelli commented at 1:23 PM on June 1, 2015:

I think the rename would have only made sense if we had renamed all bitcoin-qt binaries on all platforms (which we disagreed to because this would be to risky and without sense). I create a PR for revert the renaming of the binary (only rename the disk image)

jonasschnelli commented at 1:51 PM on June 1, 2015: contributor

Closing because of #6214

jonasschnelli closed this on Jun 1, 2015

laanwj commented at 2:16 PM on June 1, 2015: member

@theuni any suggestions here?

theuni commented at 4:38 PM on June 1, 2015: member

It my experience testing this, it just did the "right thing" tm. Because the old/new .app's use the same identifier, the older one was hidden and only the new one shows. I made sure to test that before ACKing the name change. @jonasschnelli Does the opposite happen for you? @laanwj To clarify: Usually when you drag an updated .App do Applications, it'll replace the old one. Now, it hides the old one in the launcher and only shows the new one. The old Bitcoin-Qt is still visible in the file explorer and can be deleted. So to the average user, they click -> drag, and the new .app shows up as expected. I don't think it's a messy outcome at all.

One thing I noticed is that the timestamps are nasty, because we hard-code them in gitian. Maybe bumping the gitian faketime stamps to a more current time would help to distinguish the old/new versions, especially when sorting is involved.

One quick thought: the osx manifest might allow us to account for this type of movement, checking now.

jonasschnelli commented at 6:18 PM on June 1, 2015: contributor

My concerns are more in a different direction. I think the drag'copy delete'old-app thing is not a big issue. There could be a confusing when one uses spotlight (osx search engine) or when users go over finder directly to the application dir. But: What made me open a PR for the revert, is, that the name inconsistency over the platforms just feels bad. If we use Bitcoin-Core for OSX while still using "bitcoin-qt" for windows and linux,... this is wrong. Fresh osx users then don't understand when people write about "bitcoin-qt" (stackexchange, discussion forums, etc.).

Here i'm trying to take the all or nothing position. Either we rename bitcoin-qt to Bitcoin-Core or "bitcoin-core-ui" or we keep it consistent with the "old" bitcoin-qt over all platforms.

What made me originally think about renaming was, that "bitcoin-qt" is somehow a strange application name. Bitcoin-Core as name is nice and users can distinct "bitcoin" (technology) and "bitcoin-core" (application). Bitcoin-qt is a combination of two technologies names and therefore unsuitable as branding name for a UI application. But i'm also aware of the implication a full rename from bitcoin-qt to bitcoin-core (binary) would be. But, if i would hold the steering wheel by myself, i would do the rename and would completely get rid of bitcoin-qt everywhere where it's visible to users (not to devs).

MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021