Subject: Re: What are we waiting on?
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Mon Dec 04 2000 - 18:21:41 CST
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Sam TH wrote:
> > 1. Go ahead and release now with a big warning on
> > exporting to rtf and Ben Hall's bug. Follow up with a bugfix.
> >
> > 2. Stop the release. Fix the two bugs, then release. Given how long it has
> > taken to get here, I would definately go with 1. Supporting so many
> > platforms makes things really slow. Even if I get a patch together within
> > an hour it will take another week before we can release.
>
> But if we do 1, then we have to spend the extra time for a second
> release anyway. And we distribute software that loses our users data,
> something I am very reluctant to do. Lots of people are going to
> download this release, lose their data, and hate us. Esp. if they
> find out we knew about the bug *before* the release.
>
> Also, we are waiting on both someone to write release notes, and
> SourceGear to fix their colo machine before we can release, regardless
> of bugs.
Hmm maybe the next cycle will go faster now that we know what we're doing
better. You make a valid point about losing data. That would make everyone
curse us. OK we do 1 but lets have a realistic set of validated targets
for the release. Linux rpms, Linux tarball binaries, Windows, qnx maybe
beos if someone other than Ben Hall promises to do the validation. You've
had binaries sitting there for days waiting for validation. If there are
people who want abi on that platform they should make it known by at least
telling us that the binary works.
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Dec 04 2000 - 18:21:52 CST