| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Why people don't test development distributionsWhy people don't test development distributionsPosted Jul 7, 2009 9:16 UTC (Tue) by dholland (subscriber, #14680)In reply to: Why people don't test development distributions by malor Parent article: Why people don't test development distributions
"a .0 release has an implied level of quality and release-worthiness"
I know more people who say ".0 - it'll be buggy, don't touch it" than I do people who say ".0 - new release! it'll be great! install it now!"
So maybe the implication is there - but not necessarily the one you mean.
(Log in to post comments)
Why people don't test development distributions Posted Jul 7, 2009 12:15 UTC (Tue) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]
Seriously, can you honestly define what your friends call "buggy" wrt .0 releases?
I sincerely suspect it is something like: "there will be a number of dumb bugs no one found yet. In two or three weeks time there will be a bugfix release. Use that one".
KDE 4.0 was "buggy" more along the lines of: "It doesn't work. Features were all removed. The core libs are still in full development. Please don't mention the applications. Developers are fully aware of it. They expect to bring it to 'work' within a year's time, meaning that it will take close to 2 years (or more) for it to work again."
Why people don't test development distributions Posted Jul 16, 2009 15:34 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
The *most* *important* feature of 4.0 was the API freeze.
App developers weren't writing/testing apps because the underlying libraries were a moving target. 4.0 was the release that said "this target has stopped moving, please start porting your apps".
So OF COURSE there were no apps worth speaking of on 4.0.
Cheers,
Why people don't test development distributions Posted Jul 7, 2009 12:16 UTC (Tue) by etrusco (subscriber, #4227) [Link]
Don't be silly; this is more of a Windows joke than anything else.
|
|||||||||||