Schedule for incrementing allowed AMO updates

Wayne Mery (vn) vseerror at Lehigh.EDU
Thu Jun 23 11:58:54 UTC 2011


On 6/22/2011 6:28 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2011-06-21 5:12 PM, Mark Banner wrote:
>> On 21/06/2011 19:48, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> This is really going to become a major pain really quick...
>
>> I don't understand what the pain point is here.
>
> Well, I guess that depends on whether or not this update prompt will be
> ongoing, or one time - do you know?
>
>> The only real difference that I see is that they wouldn't have got
>> the major update dialog first.
>
> Yeah, I see that now... if it is a one-time prompt that, if denied, will
> not appear again unless/until it is manually updated, then this won't be
> as bad as I first thought, I'll just have to take a screenshot of it,
> and tell my users if they see this update prompt they should deny it (we
> have a good number of extensions we use inhouse)...

It seems like you _really_ want full control over the user's environment 
and the update process. So why not distribute TB with updates disabled, 
and have a process in place whereby users are updated by some 
instruction at a time of your choosing?



More information about the tb-planning mailing list