Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Way back in June 2002.....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cirisme
    replied
    Originally posted by Freddie
    We will give you an update shortly as to the status of RC1.
    That's good to hear. I'm looking forward to it

    Leave a comment:


  • rylin
    replied
    Originally posted by Millward
    Maybe I wrote that badly. I meant that if they want to release more than one RC they should be able to without people complaining.

    EDIT: I said how they use version formats not they should be able to change version formats if they wanted to.
    Definitely.
    That said, they should aim at only needing one RC (ideally *no* changes between RC and stable).
    They also shouldn't be labeling what is considered a beta RC

    ah well.. in a perfect world..

    Leave a comment:


  • iDavid
    replied
    I've yet to see anybody really say that. I know my comments (somewhat similar to that sentiment) only suggested that there shouldn't be untested code in the RC, ideally.

    I also said that they shouldn't go into RC1 assuming an RC2. You're kind of arguing a different point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Millward
    replied
    Maybe I wrote that badly. I meant that if they want to release more than one RC they should be able to without people complaining.

    EDIT: I said how they use version formats not they should be able to change version formats if they wanted to.
    Last edited by Millward; Wed 29 Oct '03, 3:02pm.

    Leave a comment:


  • rylin
    replied
    Originally posted by Millward
    Also, I think it should be up to Jelsoft how they use version formats not you.
    When the rest of the software industry uses set version-definitions (major.minor.revision, alpha/beta/rc/gold etc), does it make sense to change that?
    I think not.
    Let's say your most favorite electronics store all of a sudden changed the description of their TV-sets on sale.
    For instance, doesn't 81.28cm sound a lot bigger than 32"?
    How about implementing their own scale? 94.3ViewPoints!
    Really, think before speaking.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freddie Bingham
    replied
    We will give you an update shortly as to the status of RC1.

    Leave a comment:


  • Millward
    replied
    Why do people find the need to complain about having to wait for a new version? Even one of the staff said that because of the way the new template system works they had to stabilise the code. What would be the point in creating the new style if the template system code had to be changed in the next release? If Jelsoft had released the style earlier it would have probably delayed the release of vB3 further.

    And they never gave an OFFICIAL release date, if they had and they were unable to meet that deadline you still would have complained. Also, I think it should be up to Jelsoft how they use version formats not you. Remember, good things come to people who WAIT! They even extended everyone's licenses to allow them to download betas of vB3. Some people are just damn ungratefull.

    Maybe they are a little behind but at least they're trying their best. I'm not bothered that we have to wait a bit longer. Maybe they got behind schedule because of changes in the dev team you never know. I think everyone should chill out and I hope someone locks this topic soon.

    Leave a comment:


  • iDavid
    replied
    Originally posted by Tungsten
    Now I know that a lot of people are going to cry foul about this and carry on about how there should only be one RC before a product goes gold -- per some mythical standards for releasing software -- but I've seen plenty of Microsoft products go through several RC iterations before finally going "gold" so this doesn't seem too out of line for me.
    Just a quick note -- I (and I would imagine most who disagree with the version progression of vB3) don't think that it's that people demand a single RC; in practice, that's often quite difficult to achieve.

    However, the issue is more likely with the fact that substantial code is being released and tested externally for the first time at the RC stage. Typically the goal is for all code at the RC level to have had substantial testing.

    (And yes, I did read Steve's post, but I'm just following up on this particular discussion. Don't jump on me!)

    Leave a comment:


  • TripleH
    replied
    That is what a Staff member had posted... So cross your fingers

    Leave a comment:


  • heretic
    replied
    quite the opposite.

    I'm not trying to argue anything. I'm trying to get an answer, as are most people here.

    You've stated your point, and I have stated mine.

    And for the future, updates on the status would help. My license is running out soon. Some of us have pumped out a few hundred for our forums, we are at least entitled to an estimated release date. Am I right to assume it's christmas?

    Leave a comment:


  • Tolitz
    replied
    Originally posted by heretic
    or perhaps Duke Nukem Forever?
    Really now ... comparing vB3 to DNF is as bad as exaggeration gets ... your impatience is bordering on the ridiculous side, and it isn't helping your argument at all... stop grasping at straws...

    Leave a comment:


  • Tungsten
    replied
    Originally posted by Steve Machol
    AFAIK (and the Devs can and should correct me if I'm wrong) because of the way the new template system works it was necessary to substantially stablize the code before any serious work could be done on the style. This is why it could not be done earlier than this.
    This is really the only conclusion that makes sense if you stand back and take a look at the overall picture of what is happening with vB3. It's not like you guys have just decided to do a minor version update from 2.x but this is a massive undertaking.

    Considering that programming is largely an architectural artform, logic alone dictates that you build the skeleton first and then apply the skin. Right?

    I think you guys are doing things exactly the way they should be done if you want to release a final product that hopefully won't require too many bugfixes down the road.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Machol
    replied
    AFAIK (and the Devs can and should correct me if I'm wrong) because of the way the new template system works it was necessary to substantially stablize the code before any serious work could be done on the style. This is why it could not be done earlier than this.

    I also want to make one general comment. I appreciate the fact that people have been able to express their criticisms and disagreements in this thread without resorting to personal attacks and insults. IMO it's important to listen to the comments from our customers - whether good or bad. Frankly this is the only way we can continue to grow and improve our services.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ksilebo
    replied
    I wish this thread would get locked already, its just the "whine about RC1" thread" and "whine about vB 3" thread now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tungsten
    replied
    Originally posted by heretic
    you completely missed my point. read my post above yours.

    if you're not going to release the style until RC1, that defeats the purpose of having a beta. Honestly, Jelsoft cannot test for every bug, so why put out a release on a style that's only been privately tested?
    From what it appears to me, Jelsoft's mentality has been to make all of the structural developments through the Beta cycle and then make the interface tweaks through the Release Candidate cycle.

    Now I know that a lot of people are going to cry foul about this and carry on about how there should only be one RC before a product goes gold -- per some mythical standards for releasing software -- but I've seen plenty of Microsoft products go through several RC iterations before finally going "gold" so this doesn't seem too out of line for me.

    <shrug>

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X