Sigh...
Okay, things make sense now.
Before I explain it, let me just say that my own confusion over the past 24 hours (concerning events that took place only a few months ago, mind you) has made it painfully clear to me that all of you who have complained about the lack of clarity in our patch process have a very strong point. If I can't keep this stuff straight in my head, and I was directly involved in the process at the time, I can only imagine how confusing it might seem to someone outside the company.
Therefore, I can assure you that for the next version of CVI, if and when we release one a patch, we will: 1. make the full version of the patch completely explicit, 2. provide a history of all patches for that version of CVI (including maintenance releases), 3. document in that history the list of bugs that the patch fixes, and 4. notify all registered users of the existence of that patch.
Okay, so now let me provide a chronology of the 7.1.1 events, as I now understand them:
1. In mid-January, we shipped CVI 7.1.1. This was a maintenance release of CVI 7.1. From this point on, all 7.1 orders received 7.1.1 instead. 7.1.1 installed binaries that were versioned to 7.1.1.313. (Although officially, the product is still called 7.1.1. For example, CVI 7.1 installed binaries that were versioned to 7.1.0.306, but the product was still called 7.1)
2. Immediately after releasing the 7.1.1 CD, we began work on a patch that could be applied to existing 7.1 users, so that they would not have to uninstall 7.1 and reinstall 7.1.1.
3. Only a few days later, while working on this patch, we received a report of a serious bug in CVI, for which we decided to include a fix in the patch we were developing (it was, however, too late to include the fix in the 7.1.1 CD). This was the bug that BrianM ran into. (Brian, if you're reading this, I owe you a huge apology. In my previous reply to you, I said that your engineer's bug had already been fixed in 313. I was wrong. I also said that you should trust me that 313 and 314 were functionally identical. They were not. They were different in one single item, and that was the fix to the bug that affected you.)
4. In early February, we released the 7.1.1 patch that I mentioned above. Because it now contained one additional fix, the binaries it installed were 7.1.1.314. We posted an announcement for this patch here in this forum.
5. In mid-February, we found a problem with the patch: a file in the 7.1 installation that needed to be updated was not being updated, and the result was that the interactive window would not work properly. We rebuilt the patch with the missing file, and replaced the link in our website to be this new patch. This patch did not require a rebuild of CVI, therefore the binary versions remained at 7.1.1.314. However, we still needed the new patch to replace the old patch, if one should be installed over the other, and that is why the Product Version field in the installer was set to 7.1.1315.0.
What we *should* have done at that time is that we should have posted another announcement in this forum alerting to the fact that the previous patch was defective, and that users should apply the new patch. Not having made this announcement is my biggest regret in this matter.
So there you have it. Even though our intention all along was to have a single new version of CVI 7.1, to be named 7.1.1, these two events conspired to make this goal elusive, at best.
Please accept my sincerest apologies
Luis
