Pavel Janík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > preview: do you object on the grounds of this being against > > established process rules, or do you really think it was too early > > quality-wise (which is a slippery slope, surely, because quality will > > always get better if one waits some more...)? > > both, but mainly the process. First preview not contained only two > cwses mixed together, but also hack patches that were never > integrated (like enabling native filepicker by default for all > platforms) etc. This was a huge problem in the future because people > reported issues in filepicker, but filepicker was NOT integrated at > that time yet, so we spent lot of time hunting non-existing bugs. > Agreed - what gets released to the public must be reproducable in some well-defined way, and must not originate from someone's private harddisk alone.
> For general public, only master builds should be used (e.g. > SRC680_m221). For developers/active community testers, we could also > produce cws builds (like aquavcl02 build). But we should not announce > such builds as Macport as "Preview XI", we should only use master > builds for this purpose. > I beg to differ. You've been lucky here, because the Aqua port is no official product yet. If it were, we'd never been able to integrate aquavcl01 in its current state. Like the chart2 team did milestone/preview builds from their CWS, we can (and should!) do as well. > But ok, it happened. I'm now talking about the future. > I wholeheartedly agree, and will stop debating this now. ;-) Cheers, -- Thorsten If you're not failing some of the time, you're not trying hard enough. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
