# Info On Next Software Release



## Eagles (Dec 31, 2003)

Just received this e-mail from a Dish contact who has proved to give me pretty accurate 921 info in the past. This was in response to some OTA EPG questions I asked. The following is the text of the response minus the identity. I realize the OTA EPG info is pretty generic, but the predicted release date is not.
Does anyone know what "CANIDATE LABELS" means?





Hey Rob,

Glad to hear that your CC is working now...

As for the OTA EPG Info / look for improvements in L216
Projected release date with in the next two weeks

The primary focus of this software label will be driven towards OTA
information in the EPG - we are still testing candidate labels, once
complete the software will roll to the field.

I will send you an update once received....

Thanks!


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

It's a configuration management term. A "label" is applied to certain versions of all of the source files. One can then refer to the software executables built using those file versions by the label name. It need not be the "newest" version of a given source file which is labeled with a given label; in some cases it's a version which is known to be stable or known to be needed for a specific purpose.

So the notion of testing a release candidate label is that a certain version of the software has been built and is being evaluated (i.e. tested). If it is found to be satisfactory and doesn't introduce any major new issues, it can then be released.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Rob - it means that we have a test version now that we're putting though the paces for the missing OTA guide data issues that happened in L215.


----------



## TonyB (Jul 5, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> Rob - it means that we have a test version now that we're putting though the paces for the missing OTA guide data issues that happened in L215.


I wonder what they will break this time


----------



## Indydave (Nov 28, 2004)

Mark,

Please ask them to put the Indianapolis PBS channel 20-1 back in. It was working fine before 213 came out.


Thanks,


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm doing c&p from full report at other site:

Number of receivers= [51] 
50372480 59416613 57101710 57101887 57101836 57101700 50372881 59416621 59416388 57101672
57101934 57101698 59416341 59416559 57101916 50372569 59416636 57102707 59413834 57101857
59413854 57101692 50372367 57103030 59416583 57101765 57101783 59447180 50372554 59495024
59447331 59416316 59416606 57101773 59413802 59825296 57101920 59495012 57101752 59413856
65291006 59416551 61052902 59442874 59442874 57101696 57101690 65291006 57102734 50372532
59419787

Check your system info if your receiver belong to the group.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

You'd know it if your 921 was in that group.


----------



## Rodney (Aug 22, 2003)

Assuming Receiver IDs are assigned in chronological order the vast majority of the ones posted by P Smith, compared to mine, appear to have been made very early in the manufacturing process.

I may be in left field with this comment but I believe there may have been slight hardware modifications made since the initial 921s were released, that account for some of the difficulties software writers are experiencing in squashing bugs that some of the receivers experience while others do not.

Mark made the following comment regarding the stuck aspect ratio issue after L215 was released.

"Ah, ****...

I wish to God I knew how you guys triggered this again...I literally tried for hours to break this under the betas, and never succeeded..."

There is obviously a reason that some experience this issue, and others, with regularity while others do not.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Good point Rodney, I'm agree with you for 100% from my years of SW/HW support experience.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

How does one become a beta tester? Please, no jokes about simply owning a 921.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Jal - the only way is to be asked by Dish to do it.


----------



## welchwarlock (Jan 5, 2005)

Rodney said:


> Assuming Receiver IDs are assigned in chronological order the vast majority of the ones posted by P Smith, compared to mine, appear to have been made very early in the manufacturing process.
> 
> I may be in left field with this comment but I believe there may have been slight hardware modifications made since the initial 921s were released, that account for some of the difficulties software writers are experiencing in squashing bugs that some of the receivers experience while others do not.
> 
> ...


This may be the case, but it is very simple matter to build an abstraction layer that hides the differences from the rest of the software, so that it runs properly on any machine. (I wrote a game in 86 that ran in CGA, VGA, EGA, Text Mode, or ANSII. You simply abstract those differences to a lower level, and the application runs fine) Many people call this abstraction a "Driver" Now if they did something silly like add more memory, cache, or change the processor speed... You can't really abstract those differences, but easy enough to code to the lowest denominator... I wish I could help them out.

WW


----------



## TonyB (Jul 5, 2004)

TonyB said:


> I wonder what they will break this time


Mark,
a week ago you made comments about how negative my posts were - I think you had it wrong - I was VERY clarvoyant. I was right on the mark about their ability to fix something without breaking something else. My 921 is now a doorstop (lights come on the box but no picture, no nothing).

Is a new release days away???


----------

