[DCP-o-matic] DCP-o-matic release candidate - DCP-o-matic users

Jim Dummett

17 Mar 17 Mar

11:16 a.m.

Hi Carl. Maybe a bad time to ask this but... Looking at the list of changes (and new logo!), would this new version qualify for a major version bump i.e. DCP-o-matic 3? I ask for 2 reasons: 1. It looks like a major release in terms of new features 2. As someone who values stability above all else, it'd be great to be able to install v2.10.5 and the new version alongside each other, the way one can have both v1 and v2 installed. That way I could continue to use v2.10.5 for production, while dabbling with new new version, and only upgrade once the new version's (inevitable) bugs have been ironed out. Obviously people have been giving the test versions a spin and many bugs have been ironed out, but it's not going to get a proper pounding until it is released as "stable". Alternatively, is there a way to install v2.10.5 and v2.12.0 together on Mac OS and for them to happily coexist (not share same config.xml etc)? Many thanks, Jim On 17/03/2018 00:28, Carl Hetherington via DCPomatic wrote:

...

Hi all, 2.11.77 is now available from here: https://dcpomatic.com/test-download and barring disasters this will be the release version 2.12.0. Any last-minute testing would be welcome. The OS X version has had a bit of "adjustment" in the last few days to get it past Gatekeeper so that in particular needs a work-out! Thank you, Carl _______________________________________________ DCPomatic mailing list DCPomatic(a)carlh.net http://main.carlh.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dcpomatic

Reply

Carsten Kurz

2:38 p.m.

New subject: [DCP-o-matic] DOM 2.11.77 install problems on Mac OS

Hi Jim, 1.) you can have many versions installed in parallel on a Mac. Currently, I have about 15 or so, each in it's own folder. This doesn't work on other platforms, at least not easily. My current Applications/DOM subfolder structure is - /dcpomatic/Release/ /dcpomatic/Test_2_11_xx /dcpomatic/Test_2_11_yy ... Occasionally, it turns out that prefs between major version bumps are not compatible, so you need to backup your prefs once you start working with a major new release. E.g. prefs from 2.11.x are not backwards compatible with 2.10.5 Going FROM 2.10.5 to 2.11.x is no problem. If you care about prefs and certs, you need to make sure you ZIP a set of prefs for each version. You will probably notice that you don't need to switch back to an older version too often once you started with a new release. As newer is ALWAYS better ;-) 2.) The long Gatekeeper run is 'normal', and happens due to the new codesigning. It only occurs with the first run of each app after installation. The good thing is, once that has happened, you don't get the 'Allow incoming connections' request every time you start DCP-o-matic, batch converter or encode server. Just let it happen, one app for a time. It takes about 3-4 minutes on my machine. One positive side effect of the code signing now also is that you don't need to CTRL-Click the apps in order to open them initially. Getting this to work was quite some struggle for Carl, but I think it's good to use code signing and for Carl to be a registered OS X developer. Due to increasing security constraints on Windows and Mac platforms, DCP-o-matic would sooner or later run into trouble without that. Now, one should be careful with such promises, but, as you see, 2.11.x so far has seen the most test versions ever, and only VERY FEW of them were due because of the new features, but most to iron out old and new bugs. Major bug cleanup started late last year, so, those many test builds did make sure that there SHOULDN'T be too many bugs left. After all, 2.10.x settled on 2.10.5 for the 'final' stable release, so, of course, 2.12 will certainly not stay on 2.12.0 for too long. But I don't think we will see a 2.12.77... And keep in mind, 2.10.5 DOES contain some known bugs that are only cleaned out in 2.11.x and 2.12 - Carsten

Reply

Carsten Kurz

1:28 p.m.

New subject: [DCP-o-matic] DOM 2.11.77 install problems on Mac OS

I think we should leave it as planned. I am confident that everything that worked in 2.10.5 still works in 2.12. with the exception of custom container types, but that is something we wanted to get rid of intentionally. We should probably include a Readme1st this time, explaining the prefs backup, signature change and implications, and codesigning/verification delay. While DCP-o-matic is not the only Mac app showing that delay (google finds many forum discussions around that), we should tell people that this is normal, otherwise we will get many complaints on the mailing list and forum, and probably also many people staying on 2.10.5 as well because they consider the new version broken. - Carsten ...gesendet von unterwegs

...

Am 18.03.2018 um 01:31 schrieb Carl Hetherington <cth(a)carlh.net>et>: Hi all, I agree that the config file thing is not great. At the moment if you go to 2.11.x and then back to 2.10.5 your config file will be lost (sort-of: it's backed up next to your new one by DCP-o-matic but it's not as easy as it could be to find). An alternative to this would be making 2.12.0 copy your existing config and then use its own, so if you went back to 2.10.5 you'd get your old config and you'd have two (possibly divergent) configs. I'm not averse to doing this for 2.12.0 if people think it's a good idea. I'm undecided personally. The version 3 thing feels like a workaround for an unhelpful operating system to me, so I'm less inclined. If 2.12.0 doesn't work for you, re-install 2.10.5: it shouldn't take long. Also I suspect 2.12.0 projects won't load into 2.10.5 (though I haven't tested that) so encouraging people to have multiple versions in use may not be a great idea. I'm open to persuasion on both of these matters though! Carl > On Sat, 17 Mar 2018, Carsten Kurz via DCPomatic wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > 1.) you can have many versions installed in parallel on a Mac. Currently, I have about 15 or so, each in it's own folder. This doesn't work on other platforms, at least not easily. > My current Applications/DOM subfolder structure is > > - /dcpomatic/Release/ > /dcpomatic/Test_2_11_xx > /dcpomatic/Test_2_11_yy > ... > > Occasionally, it turns out that prefs between major version bumps are not compatible, so you need to backup your prefs once you start working with a major new release. > > E.g. prefs from 2.11.x are not backwards compatible with 2.10.5 Going FROM 2.10.5 to 2.11.x is no problem. > > If you care about prefs and certs, you need to make sure you ZIP a set of prefs for each version. You will probably notice that you don't need to switch back to an older version too often once you started with a new release. As newer is ALWAYS better ;-) > > 2.) The long Gatekeeper run is 'normal', and happens due to the new codesigning. It only occurs with the first run of each app after installation. The good thing is, once that has happened, you don't get the 'Allow incoming connections' request every time you start DCP-o-matic, batch converter or encode server. Just let it happen, one app for a time. It takes about 3-4 minutes on my machine. One positive side effect of the code signing now also is that you don't need to CTRL-Click the apps in order to open them initially. > > Getting this to work was quite some struggle for Carl, but I think it's good to use code signing and for Carl to be a registered OS X developer. Due to increasing security constraints on Windows and Mac platforms, DCP-o-matic would sooner or later run into trouble without that. > > Now, one should be careful with such promises, but, as you see, 2.11.x so far has seen the most test versions ever, and only VERY FEW of them were due because of the new features, but most to iron out old and new bugs. Major bug cleanup started late last year, so, those many test builds did make sure that there SHOULDN'T be too many bugs left. > > After all, 2.10.x settled on 2.10.5 for the 'final' stable release, so, of course, 2.12 will certainly not stay on 2.12.0 for too long. But I don't think we will see a 2.12.77... > And keep in mind, 2.10.5 DOES contain some known bugs that are only cleaned out in 2.11.x and 2.12 > > > - Carsten > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > DCPomatic mailing list > DCPomatic(a)carlh.net > http://main.carlh.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dcpomatic >

Reply

Carl Hetherington

19 Mar 19 Mar

12:17 a.m.

New subject: [DCP-o-matic] DOM 2.11.77 install problems on Mac OS

It would be nice to avoid breaking project/config file compatibility as much as possible. New things can usually be added without a problem; it's changing existing things that can be hard, and it's usually a trade-off between code complexity and backwards compatibility. Up to now I probably haven't given enough priority to maintaining compatibility, especially with config; I've preferred to keep the code reasonably nice. It's hard to look forward and see what might need changing in the future, so I don't think there's too much that can usefully be modified in advance at this point. There were a lot of internal changes in 2.11.x so I think we have to suck it up this time. I'll be more careful in future :) It has to be said, though, that the breakages we are talking about here *only* (at least, I think) cause problems when loading *new* projects or configs into *old* versions of DoM. New DoMs should be able to load old stuff going back quite a way (even back to 1.x). As long as you upgrade all your machines at the same time, and be careful to test the new DoM with new projects only, I believe it should not be a massive deal (though correct me if I'm wrong). All the best, Carl On Sun, 18 Mar 2018, Carsten Kurz via DCPomatic wrote:

...

Hmm, Carl may not like the idea at this point - but as 2.11.x breaks prefs and project backward compatibility - why not utilize that aspect for good and look over some prefs/project file parameters that could be revised for future use? E.g. I see a (probably historic choice) boolean wrapping type parameter that sets SMPTE by indicating Interop=0 - what if e.g. we change that to 'Wrapping' and allow more than two choices in the future to allow e.g. specific SMPTE types to be created? That is just an example (maybe not a good one), but since 2.11/2.12 breaks backward compatibility anyway, why not think over it? E.g. which changes could come up when Carl starts working on CCAPs? New SMPTE DCPs may include more metadata options - maybe allow for different SMPTE dialects to be created? Maybe allow encrypted SMPTE DCPs to be created without encrypting subtitles (we should probably leave this to be config file setting, not a GUI settable). I may be to late with these ideas for 2.12, but then maybe for 2.13... - Carsten ...gesendet von unterwegs

Am 18.03.2018 um 14:28 schrieb Carsten Kurz via DCPomatic <dcpomatic(a)carlh.net>et>: I think we should leave it as planned. I am confident that everything that worked in 2.10.5 still works in 2.12. with the exception of custom container types, but that is something we wanted to get rid of intentionally. We should probably include a Readme1st this time, explaining the prefs backup, signature change and implications, and codesigning/verification delay. While DCP-o-matic is not the only Mac app showing that delay (google finds many forum discussions around that), we should tell people that this is normal, otherwise we will get many complaints on the mailing list and forum, and probably also many people staying on 2.10.5 as well because they consider the new version broken. - Carsten ...gesendet von unterwegs

Am 18.03.2018 um 01:31 schrieb Carl Hetherington <cth(a)carlh.net>et>: Hi all, I agree that the config file thing is not great. At the moment if you go to 2.11.x and then back to 2.10.5 your config file will be lost (sort-of: it's backed up next to your new one by DCP-o-matic but it's not as easy as it could be to find). An alternative to this would be making 2.12.0 copy your existing config and then use its own, so if you went back to 2.10.5 you'd get your old config and you'd have two (possibly divergent) configs. I'm not averse to doing this for 2.12.0 if people think it's a good idea. I'm undecided personally. The version 3 thing feels like a workaround for an unhelpful operating system to me, so I'm less inclined. If 2.12.0 doesn't work for you, re-install 2.10.5: it shouldn't take long. Also I suspect 2.12.0 projects won't load into 2.10.5 (though I haven't tested that) so encouraging people to have multiple versions in use may not be a great idea. I'm open to persuasion on both of these matters though! Carl > On Sat, 17 Mar 2018, Carsten Kurz via DCPomatic wrote: > > Hi Jim, > > 1.) you can have many versions installed in parallel on a Mac. Currently, I have about 15 or so, each in it's own folder. This doesn't work on other platforms, at least not easily. > My current Applications/DOM subfolder structure is > > - /dcpomatic/Release/ > /dcpomatic/Test_2_11_xx > /dcpomatic/Test_2_11_yy > ... > > Occasionally, it turns out that prefs between major version bumps are not compatible, so you need to backup your prefs once you start working with a major new release. > > E.g. prefs from 2.11.x are not backwards compatible with 2.10.5 Going FROM 2.10.5 to 2.11.x is no problem. > > If you care about prefs and certs, you need to make sure you ZIP a set of prefs for each version. You will probably notice that you don't need to switch back to an older version too often once you started with a new release. As newer is ALWAYS better ;-) > > 2.) The long Gatekeeper run is 'normal', and happens due to the new codesigning. It only occurs with the first run of each app after installation. The good thing is, once that has happened, you don't get the 'Allow incoming connections' request every time you start DCP-o-matic, batch converter or encode server. Just let it happen, one app for a time. It takes about 3-4 minutes on my machine. One positive side effect of the code signing now also is that you don't need to CTRL-Click the apps in order to open them initially. > > Getting this to work was quite some struggle for Carl, but I think it's good to use code signing and for Carl to be a registered OS X developer. Due to increasing security constraints on Windows and Mac platforms, DCP-o-matic would sooner or later run into trouble without that. > > Now, one should be careful with such promises, but, as you see, 2.11.x so far has seen the most test versions ever, and only VERY FEW of them were due because of the new features, but most to iron out old and new bugs. Major bug cleanup started late last year, so, those many test builds did make sure that there SHOULDN'T be too many bugs left. > > After all, 2.10.x settled on 2.10.5 for the 'final' stable release, so, of course, 2.12 will certainly not stay on 2.12.0 for too long. But I don't think we will see a 2.12.77... > And keep in mind, 2.10.5 DOES contain some known bugs that are only cleaned out in 2.11.x and 2.12 > > > - Carsten > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > DCPomatic mailing list > DCPomatic(a)carlh.net > http://main.carlh.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dcpomatic >

_______________________________________________ DCPomatic mailing list DCPomatic(a)carlh.net http://main.carlh.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dcpomatic

Reply