Hey Campbell, thinking about a older comment you made about users will want to only test the shiny one with all the new features. I kind of agree with that, I would probably be the first. But who says that this version tested/compiled via CI should be available to public ? Like the way only certified developers could submit code, why can't we think about "only dev binary". So this branch could only be used and see by devs having credentials ?
2015-03-08 12:48 GMT+01:00 Campbell Barton <[email protected]>: > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:57 AM, David Fenner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Truth be told, release candidates aren't very well tested anyway. It's > when > > a true release comes when true testing begins. I say it as an artist > myself. > > > > My personal opinion on this matter is a little more unorthodox, I think > > there simple shouldn't be a "Bcon" and releases every 3 months. I'm very > > serious. This only makes blender development too sparse and out of focus > on > > the important things. Releases should come when the goals are met, > period. > > Just like Krita does. The big discussion should be about what will this > > goals be, will it be despgraph refactor, hair sim, cloth speed, and some > > other things. If these things are unfinished, then "in the middle" > > releseases just get developers out of focus. Nobody wants a half made > tool > > that rushes into a release, or development time wasted in a release that > > doesn't have the tool at all. What is the point of fixing so many bugs > when > > there are 20 half baked projects in the way that will come with a ton of > > bugs very soon anyway? Why not make really important releases? We don't > > care if we wait for eight months for a real release. Then I'd be truly > > interested in testing release candidates, but honestly, if nobody tests > > them right now, is for a reason, and this is "why should I test it if > > another one will come in a very short time anyway? " We can talk about > > community morals here, about being really active and not only ripping of > > the benefits and bla bla bla but in truth, really effective things occur > > when we see things like they really are, not based on ideals. > > > > The fact that this discussion even started shows that something needs to > be > > done here, and instead of making separate branches, that as sergey said, > > most people will stick to the development one, I propose simple extending > > the release cycle indefinetely, until clear, big and small goals are met, > > with a cap of course, lets say nine months or a year. > > Blender used to do releases much less frequently (release when its > ready) as you described and it didn't work well for us. > > Also the comment "nobody tests them right now" isn't true, we get bug > reports specifically from users testing RC's in our tracker. > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > -- ____________________ François Tarlier www.francois-tarlier.com www.linkedin.com/in/francoistarlier _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
