--- Martin Spott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm clever enough to realize that my idea of quality control is not
> necessary the best one for FG ;-)) I simply want to point out that
> the project is very well advised to have better quality control than it
> had for the past years. I have one or two ideas how this could be
> achieved, I'm convinced that others have other and probably better
> ideas and I'd like to see an open discussion on this.
OK, here's my tuppence.
I'd be much more likely to test a pre-release if it was available as a
binary. While I (eventually) managed to get FG CVS to compile under
cygwin, many new or non-dev users will be using the windows/Linux binaries
directly, so it makes sense to test them and pick up the OS-specific
issues, of which there are probably quite a few.
Of course, creating a full windows install is presumably a lot of work and
not practical for 0.9.9. For the big v1.0, which presumably is going to be
quite high visibility as an OSS project going to a full release, I think
it is something we should seriously look at doing.
Having just finished a release cycle in my day job, you can imagine how
enthusiastic I am about doing more testing ;), but I'll definitely try.
-Stuart
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
