On 09/17/2013 01:43 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 17/09/2013, at 8:40 PM, Richmond wrote:
Not that sensitive at all; the "smile" at the end should have told you that
that was just an opener to
my subsequent remarks.
;-) <-- opener for subsequent remarks
;-) <-- actual remark
LOL.
--
Mont
On 17/09/2013, at 8:40 PM, Richmond wrote:
> Not that sensitive at all; the "smile" at the end should have told you that
> that was just an opener to
> my subsequent remarks.
;-) <-- opener for subsequent remarks
;-) <-- actual remark
--
Monte Goulding
M E R Goulding - software development
On 09/17/2013 01:28 PM, Monte Goulding wrote:
On 17/09/2013, at 7:54 PM, Richmond wrote:
I don't know if that is meant as a bi*chy comment aimed at me or not :)
Feeling sensitive today Richmond? I wasn't aiming anything. I think it's a good
idea to have a preference setting. It would also be
Hi All,
I think the suggestion of changing the updater so that the stable versions
are offered by default is a good one.
Thanks for the input,
Warm regards,
Ben
On 17 September 2013 11:28, Monte Goulding wrote:
>
> On 17/09/2013, at 7:54 PM, Richmond wrote:
> >
> > I don't know if that is m
On 17/09/2013, at 7:54 PM, Richmond wrote:
>
> I don't know if that is meant as a bi*chy comment aimed at me or not :)
Feeling sensitive today Richmond? I wasn't aiming anything. I think it's a good
idea to have a preference setting. It would also be good if any warnings about
the build were
It's interesting that people didn't start complaining about this until they
realised there would be parallel development of 6.1.2. As Richard suggests a
mechanism to be notified of all releases or not with the default being only
final releases would work nicely. As things develop we may see mor
Monte-
Monday, September 16, 2013, 1:10:16 PM, you wrote:
>> In the light of this I wonder about the wisdom of including
>> 6.5.0 dp1 in the upgrade offers.
> Why?
Because when something appears as an update notice folks start
thinking it's an actual upgrade and not a caveat-developer alpha bui
On 9/16/13 3:49 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
Monte-
Monday, September 16, 2013, 1:10:16 PM, you wrote:
In the light of this I wonder about the wisdom of including
6.5.0 dp1 in the upgrade offers.
Why?
Because when something appears as an update notice folks start
thinking it's an actual upgrade
On 17/09/2013, at 6:49 AM, Mark Wieder wrote:
> Because when something appears as an update notice folks start
> thinking it's an actual upgrade and not a caveat-developer alpha build
> replete with a cautionary note that only appears in the list notice
> and not in the update mechanism.
There'
It's interesting that people didn't start complaining about this until they
realised there would be parallel development of 6.1.2. As Richard suggests a
mechanism to be notified of all releases or not with the default being only
final releases would work nicely. As things develop we may see more
On 17/09/2013, at 7:09 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> I just submitted a request to have two different update options, settable in
> Prefs, so that by default new users would avoid the risks of DPs by only
> getting notification of final releases, while the rest of us could turn on
> the option
Mark Wieder wrote:
Monte-
Monday, September 16, 2013, 1:10:16 PM, you wrote:
In the light of this I wonder about the wisdom of including
6.5.0 dp1 in the upgrade offers.
Why?
Because when something appears as an update notice folks start
thinking it's an actual upgrade and not a caveat-d
On 17/09/2013, at 3:28 AM, Richmond wrote:
> In the light of this I wonder about the wisdom of including 6.5.0 dp1 in the
> upgrade offers.
Why?
--
Monte Goulding
M E R Goulding - software development services
mergExt - There's an external for that!
_
On 09/16/2013 06:52 PM, Benjamin Beaumont wrote:
Thanks Colin, All.
We are preparing a 6.1.2 maintenance release that will include support for
xCode 5. We'll be adding support for the addition icon(s).
In the light of this I wonder about the wisdom of including 6.5.0 dp1 in
the upgrade offers
Thanks Colin, All.
We are preparing a 6.1.2 maintenance release that will include support for
xCode 5. We'll be adding support for the addition icon(s).
We expect to release RC1 at the end of the week.
Warm regards,
Ben
On 13 September 2013 15:45, Colin Holgate wrote:
> If it might save you
If it might save you some time, here are the list of sizes that you need to
support, including the Android sizes and the iTunes artwork:
29, 36, 40, 48, 50, 57, 58, 72, 76, 80, 96, 100, 114, 120, 144, 152, 512, 1024
and here are the names that Apple uses for their ones:
Icon-Ipad-76.png
Icon-Ip
Hi Alain,
We are aware of the changes Apple made to iOS icon sizes. There is a bug
report on the issue here-
http://quality.runrev.com/show_bug.cgi?id=11139
We will shortly be providing a fix for this.
Kind Regards,
Neil Roger
--
RunRev Support Team ~ http://www.runrev.com
--
On 13/09/2
Hi All,
The last time I upgraded two of my iOS apps, which were not rejected by Apple,
I received this message for the iPhone one
"Missing recommended icon file - The bundle does not contain an app icon for
iPhone / iPod Touch of exactly '120x120' pixels, in .png format."
and that for the iPad
18 matches
Mail list logo
