I have to say, that the old readme for an EBF with the possibility to restrict the changes to a start and end version was one of the best documentation of changes I have seen so far.

Why was this changed to the new inferior style with just a big table of changes?

This is probably again one of these SAP harmonisation things, anyway I don't like it.

asked 16 Sep '13, 02:57

Martin's gravatar image

Martin
8.6k116150237
accept rate: 14%


Let me apologize for the state of the readme file associated with the new format of the downloads. We are working with the team responsible for generating the readme file in an effort to be able to add our previous readme format to the new releases. At the very least we're hoping to improve on the current format.

Thanks for your feedback!

permanent link

answered 17 Sep '13, 10:46

Jason%20Noack's gravatar image

Jason Noack
85611116
accept rate: 75%

Martin, I fully second your critic. The EBF readme itself does contain a list of "New Fixes in this EBF", but it does not contain the build numbers of each fix nor does it tell what "New" really does mean: What's the old version then?

  • alt text

So for users of previous EBFs, it's not possible to get a quick glance what new fixes are contained.

That being said, once you have downloaded and installed the EBF, you have also installed the classic "readme.html" in the main installation directory, and that is the file you can filter as desired:

  • alt text

Resume:

It seems odd that one should need to install [EDIT based on Reimer's hint:] download and extract the software just in order to find out whether it will contain any desired fixes...

So, I shout with Martin: "Please re-offer the filterable EBF readme on the download page!"

permanent link

answered 16 Sep '13, 04:07

Volker%20Barth's gravatar image

Volker Barth
30.3k301454660
accept rate: 32%

edited 16 Sep '13, 05:10

2

Just to add:

And the new list has problems with formatted bug descriptions, i.e. sample code and the like are just contained in the text without further formatting: Cf. this description of ADO:Net error 682773 in the 12.0.1.3924 list:

EF 4.1 is the latest release of Microsoft Entity Framework. The major new feature of EF 4.1 is "Code First". Support has now been added for Code First. Code First enables a different development workflow: defining data model objects by simply writing C# or VB.NET classes mapping to database objects without ever having to open a designer or define an XML mapping file. Optionally, additional configuration can be performed by using data annotations or the Fluent API. Model can be used to generate a database schema or map to an existing database. Here's an example which creates new database objects using the model: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations; using System.Data.Entity; using System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure; using System.Linq; using iAnywhere.Data.SQLAnywhere; namespace CodeFirstExample { [Table( "EdmCategories", Schema = "DBA" )] public class Category { public string CategoryId { get; set; } [MaxLength( 64 )] public string Name { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<product> Products { get; set; } } [Table( "EdmProducts", Schema = "DBA" )] public class Product { public int ProductId { get; set; } [MaxLength( 64 )] public string Name { get; set; } public string CategoryId { get; set; } public virtual Category Category { get; set; } } [Table( "EdmSuppliers", Schema = "DBA" )] public class Supplier { [Key] public string SupplierCode { get; set; } [MaxLength( 64 )] public string Name { get; set; } } public class Context : DbContext { public Context() : base() { } public Context( string connStr ) : base( connStr ) { } public DbSet<category> Categories { get; set; } public DbSet<product> Products { get; set; } public DbSet<supplier> Suppliers { get; set; } protected override void OnModelCreating( DbModelBuilder modelBuilder ) { modelBuilder.Entity<supplier>().Property( s => s.Name ).IsRequired(); } } class Program { static void Main( string[] args ) { Database.DefaultConnectionFactory = new [...]

Possibly the file should be named "Try to Read me":)

(16 Sep '13, 04:11) Volker Barth
2

You won't necessarily have to install the EBF to get access to the EBF documentation: the zip file (e.g. the SA16 EBF21592.zip) contains the file ReadMe_EBF.html. That's exactly the thing missing on the web page. But you still will have to download tons of MB before getting access to that information.

So I support the request for bringing that information back to the download page.

(16 Sep '13, 04:14) Reimer Pods
Replies hidden

Seems to be a mistake, I have checked 2 other .zips and e.g EBF21802.zip with SA16 EBF doesn't contain any other file than the ...ebf.exe

(16 Sep '13, 04:57) Martin

Well, AFAIK the zip file contains only one file (the installer exe - the same type of file that was offered as download formerly). However, that file itself is an self-running archive and does contain several files, among them the according ReadMe_EBF.html.

(16 Sep '13, 05:06) Volker Barth

re " the zip file (e.g. the SA16 EBF21592.zip) contains the file ReadMe_EBF.html" ... that is not true for the latest Windows 16.0.0.1644 EBF21802.zip ... no such readable HTML file is contained therein.

(16 Sep '13, 16:04) Breck Carter

...so you have to install it to see what's in it? :)

(16 Sep '13, 16:06) Breck Carter

No, as Reimer has made clear, you don't have to install, you "just to have to" download and extract... - but that's a mere workaround, I'd say. It surely doesn't fit the WATCOM rule:(

(17 Sep '13, 03:15) Volker Barth

I stand corrected. If you download EBF21802.zip, and unzip it to get SA16_Windows.1600_1644_EBF.exe, and then click right mouse - WinZip - Open with WinZip on the exe instead of running it, you can look at ReadMe_EBF.html without actually installing.

(17 Sep '13, 07:14) Breck Carter
showing 2 of 8 show all flat view

If you download the EBF, you can extract the file "SA11_Full_Win32+x64.1101_2960_EBF.exe" using WinZip or WinRar or something and inside you will find a file called "ReadMe_EBF.html".

Not really practical but it is still there.

permanent link

answered 16 Sep '13, 04:45

MichaelMangelschots's gravatar image

MichaelMange...
120119
accept rate: 0%

That may be true for the Windows 11.0.1.2960 EBF, but that is a SAP-ified re-release of the original 11.0.1.2960 EBF that was issued on April 16.

It is NOT true for the recent SAPified-only Windows 16.0.0.1644 EBF issued on September 13. That download contains 4 files; two useless SAP-ified text files, a new crappy text-style HTML read-me, and a file called EBF21802.zip which contains one single file: SA16_Windows.1600_1644_EBF.exe... that's the setup.exe file, and there is NO SIGN of the old-style HTML read-me.

Alas. Maybe that read-me will magically appear somewhere if you actually run the setup, but that's big step backwards.

Oh, well... I suppose it could be worse... SAP could start charging for EBFs.

(16 Sep '13, 15:58) Breck Carter
Replies hidden

SAPified

I googled for that, and here's the first match:

Saponification (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Ah, now I see:)

(17 Sep '13, 06:58) Volker Barth
1

That is not true. I just downloaded "SA16_Windows.1600_1644_EBF.exe" and if I extract it, it contains "ReadMe_EBF.html" which is the same old-style HTML read-me.

Remember, extract the executable, not the first zip file. It might not seem like a compressed zipfile, but it is.

(17 Sep '13, 09:28) MichaelMange...

Oh, well... I suppose it could be worse... SAP could start charging for EBFs.

Looking back, you should better had not mentioned that:(

(19 Jan '15, 08:13) Volker Barth

It looks as if that topic has been solved in the meantime: At least the newest EBFs 16.0.1691 and 12.0.1.3967 have the desired "old-style" readme available in the EBF download page:

  • alt text

(The previous EBFs still appear with the SAP-style note.)

So one can have a look at the EBF contents without having to download the installer beforehand...

Thanks, guys!

permanent link

answered 15 Nov '13, 11:00

Volker%20Barth's gravatar image

Volker Barth
30.3k301454660
accept rate: 32%

edited 15 Nov '13, 11:03

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×88
×80

question asked: 16 Sep '13, 02:57

question was seen: 17,682 times

last updated: 19 Jan '15, 08:14