[official]qBittorrent 3.0.11 installer - Built with MSVC 2008 and uTP support

[jeps]

Of cause Chris is right, but...

Why not release the current code (which I am sure is improved after the 3.0.6 release) call it 3.0.7 with the new libtorrent version?
Maybe some issues are not closed, but still the new build would be an improvement.
But since it is not my my project it is not my call to decide.

[Dayman]

[quote="jeps"]
Of cause Chris is right, but...

Why not release the current code (which I am sure is improved after the 3.0.6 release) call it 3.0.7 with the new libtorrent version?
[/quote]
Because this is not how software versioning is done. In short: don't bump the version if you haven't changed anything in your own code.

Anyway, sledge might try doing nightlyweekly releases and drop 'em on some free file hosting.

[sledgehammer_999]

I poked Chris today and he pulled some patches in the code. Maybe he decides that these fixes warrant a new release in the coming days. Otherwise, I could upload a build of git-master on sf.net in the "unstable" folder. I'll wait a few days though.

[100%]

Thanks for the good news sledge, looking forward to the next builds!

[jeps]

Okay, thanks!!

I didn't mean to start a war because on this, so my pardon if anybody got offended.
I am looking forward to sledgehammer's release, though.

[humpty]

As a seeder, I was testing the utp today. Switching (and closing) between qbt 3.0.6 and utorrent 1.8.3. Both could connect utp to the same peer. I made sure there was enough bandwidth on the limits and even tried using the same port for both.

But it was always 105+ kbytes/sec (up) for utorrent and 2.5 kbytes/s (up) for qbt. ?

[s4nder]

Something's definitely up with utp in qBT, or rather, libtorrent. For me it uploads just fine but downloading is the problem.

2.7.3 was as fast as uTorrent for me, it got a steady 4,3 MB/s download on fast torrents, with spikes up to 4,6 MB/s. After that version things have progressively become slower to where I now get 3,7 MB/s max, mostly it sits at 3,4 MB/s. I can download the same torrent in uTorrent 2.2.1 and it's back up to 4,3 MB/s. That's nearly 10 Mb/s that's somehow lost in qBT. For this reason I'm using uTorrent 2.2.1 for now. If I'm gonna pay more for a fast connection, I want to utilize it in full.

qBT's interface, specifically dealing with labels, is also too convoluted. When I want to switch from viewing all active torrents to all torrents of a specific label, I have to click twice. In other clients it takes a single click. This toggling of two different category and label filters eventually gets tiring and is another reason I'm not using qBT at the moment.

Edit: What's with the new forum style? It gets harder to read with every update. Now half the posts are hardly distinguishable from the background.

[jeps]

[quote="jeps"]
Okay, thanks!!

I didn't mean to start a war because on this, so my pardon if anybody got offended.
I am looking forward to sledgehammer's release, though.
[/quote]

But still, I hoped that a ("unstable") release would have pop-upped somewhere.
Any chance for that to happen?

[sledgehammer_999]

Here is a build of qBittorrent 3.1.0alpha from git master (27-11-2012) with boost 1.52 and libtorrent 0.16.5

Link-> http://depositfiles.com/files/w9kqviqub

[Big_Iron]

thnx, alpha is working good so far. I liked the new auto cache option.

[Yoosk]

[quote="sledgehammer_999"]
Here is a build of qBittorrent 3.1.0alpha from git master (27-11-2012) with boost 1.52 and libtorrent 0.16.5

Link-> http://depositfiles.com/files/w9kqviqub
[/quote]

Link-> http://www.mediafire.com/?7m2o9nx62r8f5n1

Because i don't like depositfiles.

[jeps]

[quote="sledgehammer_999"]
Here is a build of qBittorrent 3.1.0alpha from git master (27-11-2012) with boost 1.52 and libtorrent 0.16.5

Link-> http://depositfiles.com/files/w9kqviqub
[/quote]
So, if you wait long enough... 

Thanks, I try it right a way and report back

[s4nder]

Looking good. Surprisingly it seems to be as fast as uT 2.2.1 for me, I'm seeing speeds of over 4 MB/s again. RAM usage has gone up though, it's using 220 MB.

[Nemo]

Thanks for your effort sledge . Works good, speed improvments are there as you mention s4nder saw it immediatly.

[jeps]

I agree with the speed improvement observations (UDP?).

The memory consumption is pretty high though. It is using 530 MB right now, version 3.0.6 normally uses 120-150 MB on my setup.