Stefan Küng wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Lübbe Onken <l.onken@rac.de> wrote:
>>> I seriously doubt that an RC would have saved us here.
>>
>> Maybe
>>
>>> Not many people
>>> actually use/install an RC.
>>
>> Not proven.
>
> Experience.
Go to sourceforge.net/projects/gaim and look how often their beta has been
downloaded... Maybe not a good example, since that is a feature rich beta.
Go to sourceforge.net/projects/firebird. Their win32 RC2 has been downloaded
600 times. They have a smaller user base than TortoiseSVN, but still 600 RC
downloads (for one platform).
>> Sorry, this is just a concatenation of assumptions, made up to
>> justify that you don't want to create RCs. If you don't want create
>> RCs, for intermediate releases, don't do it (see below).
>
> Sure these are assumptions. The same as your assumption that an RC
> would have prevented this bug from going into the final release.
Since you were flooded by crashreports, I'm convinced that this particular
bug would not have made it into the release. More testers = more
configurations, more use cases. It can only help us.
>> How about a poll on SF:
>> Would you test RCs?
>> ( ) never
>> ( ) maybe
>> ( ) of course
>
> Also ask if they would actually *report* a bug if they would find one.
> Some people just try out RC because of the new features, they're not
> interested in reporting bugs (I do that too with some programs).
See if you like http://tortoisesvn.sourceforge.net/node/206/
>>> Downloading an RC or nightly does *not* mean it also gets tested.
>>
>> Hrmpf, How many people download software just for the sake of
>> downloading it? Once it's installed, it's under test.
>
> Installed != testing.
> Because testing includes *reporting* what you've found.
You got a point there, but let me reiterate. You were flooded by reports
about a serious bug. So people did (involuntarily) test *and* report back.
>>> I really don't like the idea of pushing out RC's for
>>> intermediate releases. I'm the one who has to do it, and I'd rather
>>> spend my time with other things...
>>
>> That's about the only argument you presented that I can (or have to)
>> accept.
>>
>> I checked our release history since 1.0 (~ two years) and I see at
>> least eleven obvious quick bugfix releases (withing ten days of a
>> previous
>
> Never trust a statistic you haven't forged yourself. :)
That's why I do it! Try to raise alertness!!
>> That means that 11/31 = 35% of our official releases were so broken
>> that we had to fix them quickly and I am convinced that we could get
>> below 10%
>
> "so broken" - thanks for that quote. :(
...which I successfully did :-)
>> If uploading, adjusting the web sites and announcing everything
>> everywhere is the part of the work that you don't like, I'll gladly
>> do it. I can't build TortoiseSVN, but I can take care of the
>> administrative part.
>
> Yes, *that* the part that takes the most time (kidding here). Check
> out the Release_procedure.txt please.
Sorry, but that's all I can offer. I don't have the means to build TSVN.
> I really don't get why you want an RC for intermediate releases too.
Because it hurts me physically if this kind of bug slips through.
> Not even the Subversion project does that. So why should we? Mistakes
> (like the one causing this bug, which was simply a forgotten revision
> when merging a fix) can happen, and will happen.
OK, if you like it that way, so be it.
> Even the Subversion project sometimes has to make a 'fast'
> bugfix release.
That's no reason not to try to make it better.
Cheers
- Lübbe
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 16 15:26:09 2006