Sure it's good practise to check before you commit a stable release.
But it's up to the developer doing it.
He/she is not beeing payed for it.
And he is not bound by any requirements/warranties, that usually come with a
commercial product.
A LGPL product is not by any means a commercial product.
It's merely stated that it CAN be used commercially.
But without any guarantees.
Sure, it sucks hairy monkey ass when something you would expect work, doesn't.
But you are free to not use such code.
I for instance choose not to use DynAPI for this very reason.
The company you work for commited to DynAPI probably because you said it was great.
Now they think something else, but buddy, it's your own fault.
The developers of DynAPI don't work on your project team.
Don't make promises that you can't keep.
Don't make promises that you expect other people to keep, but you don't know if they
can.
And be polite.
Get's you a helluva lot farther.
So now the only interesting question remaining, as I see it, is:
Who is more stupid? The developer committing an unstable release, or the developer
committing _to_ an unstable release (even if neither one knows it's unstable).
> A fix was checked in that does ont work on ALL systems.
> It was then release without checking.
> I don't give a fuck what you do with your own time.
> But I still don't think it's too much to ask for a cursory run through the
> examples.
> This was obviously not done as this critical error (not on browser a on
> platform b but globally)
> made it into the 'stable release'.
>
> What's done is done.
> Now the bug (and others) have been fixed, but people still can't download a
> 'table release'
> Why is this?
>
> Once apon a time it was accepted in this group, that you would at least make
> a basic test before comiiting code to CVS.
> We even created examples to be used for this testing.
>
> When did everyone take a vote to stop doing this?
> And why was I not invited?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "antti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Michael Pemberton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Doug Melvin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 12:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] Doug, READ LICENSE.TXT, PLEASE!!!
>
>
> > Doug,
> > whatever you do, it's your decisions. Nobody can force you.
> >
> > > They are now questioning my salary.
> >
> > They should. period.
> >
> > Whenever you use anything that is GPL or LPGL (like dynapi) it means: "NO
> > WARRANTY"
> > Do I have to write it red?
> > I repeat: whenever you use GPL or LPGL stuff you have no warranty. No
> rights
> > to complaing. Nil. Void.
> > Read the license.
> > You have the right not to use it. If you do, then it is assumed your
> > responsibility to assure it fits your needs.
> >
>
> > > You dont call something the "Latest Stable Release "
> > > if it does not work.
> > >
> > > You don't. period.
> >
> > Do you know what it means to test dynapi on all-browsers? It cant be done.
> > Some minor change may cause problems on any other environment except those
> > it was tested on. I guess the 'Latest Stable' was stable on some
> development
> > environments.
> >
> > > Is this so much to ask for?
> >
> > YES
> >
> > You can't ask if have not paid for it. It is too bad that with open
> > source-projects you can not pay either. If you have contributed something
> to
> > dynapi, then, well you still can't ask anything. Nobody asked or forced
> you
> > to contribute. It (if) was your choice, and entitles of no special
> handling.
> >
> > If you want somebody to test dynapi builds, then if you really really want
> > it, hire some student and pay him. It's the only way.
> > You cant ask others to do the things you want to use for your work (you
> get
> > paid), for free. It's not fair.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Sorry if you dont like what I said. However if you remember some things
> from
> > my mail it will help in the future.
> >
> > Rule #1: Read the LICENSE.TXT always! If it says 'NO WARRANTY' think about
> > what it may mean to you.
> >
> > If you salary is being questioned because you did not read the license
> > agreement of something you are using for the employer? Who's fault is
> that?
> > If somebody can't read?
> >
> > If you use 'no warranty' stuff (GPL/LGPL) then you have to ensure that you
> > are using working branch. And you have to tell your employer that you are
> > using GPL stuff. Not all employers allow that. If you did not inform them
> > (about the use of GPL ed software), then it is trouble for you.
> >
> > sorry
> > Antti
> > http://www.case2000.com/R.O.L
> > rules of life
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dynapi-dev@lists.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.mail-archive.com/dynapi-dev@lists.sourceforge.net/
