I must agree with Nathan.
Nothing disturbs me (as a software developper) more than users filing more
bug reports when I *know* there are still bugs. They might be new bugs,
but chances are they are subtle variations of known bugs. It distracts you
from your work, you loose time prioritizing and simulating when you should
be concentrated on fixing what you already know is wrong.
Give them time. I'll be happy with a beta that passes the JCK. Don't give
us (me) a first alpha that bearly compiles and executes a 'HelloWorld'
example.
Dirk.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on 13/01/99 22:43:24
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Dirk Vanhalle)
Subject: Re: JCK licensing restriction (was: JDK1.2)
I disagree on that last point, and I was wondering if anyone else feels
the same. (I'm referring to the part about not releasing any version of
the Linux JDK 1.2 until passing compatibility tests being a good thing.)
I think it's not such a good thing because, as I understand it, it
prevents any form of public beta testing. Think about it this way: If the
JDK doesn't pass the JCK, then it means there are bugs somewhere, but the
developer community can't help the Blackdown team find/kill those bugs if
a public beta isn't released. So, although one might think that forcing the
JDK to pass the JCK would reduce bugs in the final release, I would guess
that it actually produces *more* bugs since the thousands and thousands of
Java-Linux developers out there are prevented from helping out with the
beta test cycle. It also means that the beta cycle might take longer
since the pre-releases can only be tested by members of Blackdown. Am I
missing something here, or is the JCK restriction of the license really
not such a great thing after all?
Trevor
Nathan Meyers wrote:
> The answer is that it's being worked on, it'll be out soon (no date
> promised), and the Blackdown team is forbidden by the license to release
> anything until it has passed the compatibility tests (this is a good
> thing).
