I don't normally involve myself in this kind of silliness, but at some
point, we just have to say "No" to ignorance.
Eric J. Smith wrote:
> So I guess if I find a typo in the build script, but otherwise the software
> works perfectly, then the burn in period will be reset? I'm sorry, but I
> still don't get it. To me the idea of a release candidate is to make sure
> that the application works, not that someone can build it correctly. This
> is not to mention that not only do you have to worry about real bugs in your
> release candidate, but you have to worry about people who don't have a clue
> of how to build Subversion building it the wrong way and then reporting bugs
> based on that?
It's very obvious that you don't have a clue about how Open Source
software works and even less about cross platform software works.
The ability to build the software on multiple platforms is just as
important as the ability to run the software on multiple platforms.
Subtle differences in compiler versions and library versions can reveal
or even cause bugs in the software. Any responsible developer wants to
find these types of problems *before* a final release, not after.
> Also, does it really make sense to have the Subversion developers (these are
> the only people that know how to build Subversion)
I'm not sure if you really mean what you are saying. Personally, I
won't install the binary release of anything, if I can avoid it. I much
prefer to compile from source so I know that the binary is taking
advantage of whatever libraries I have installed or so I can tweak the
build process for my particular environment. Building from source is
not a particularly difficult task. I could have installed subversion
from source on a whole room of servers in the time this thread has taken
to develop. Of course I don't use Windows, so don't know what kind of
road blocks Bill has put in way, but it can't be *that* much harder than
UN*X.
> themselves testing their
> own application and effectively being the only ones to sign off on this
> "release candidate"?? Isn't this like one of the golden rules of software
> development?
For proprietary commercial software perhaps. But for that, you are
forced to us the OS that the vendor has built the application for. You
don't get to choose one of 50 OS variants to run.
Your whole attitude betrays you as a Windows only user. As is typical
of Windows only users, you don't really understand the real world, only
your little OS's corner of it.
> If the release is being delayed because of a dependency on Apache that is
> one thing, but if the expectation is that a bunch of end users are going to
> take the time to setup a build environment, figure out how to build the
> software and then test this "release candidate"... which happens to be a
> major change over previous versions and you would think would require lots
> of testing before it's signed off on... then IMHO that is crazy.
I think it's crazy for someone to bitch and moan so much about software
that he doesn't have to pay a dime for. But then again, I guess I'm not
surprised.
I think the real issue isn't whether the Subversion developers should
provide binary distributions to whiny Windows users, but whether or not
whiny Windows users should be allowed to use Subversion. Regardless,
you aren't qualified to evaluate a release candidate, so you should
perhaps considering quiting before you make a real ass of yourself and
waiting for some kind soul to provide you with a binary version of the
final release.
-m
--
## Mark T. Dame <mailto:mdame@mfm.com>
## VP, Product Development
## MFM Software, Inc. (http://www.mfm.com/)
"Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 12 22:11:56 2005