Mama Cass wrote:
> In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Graham Leggett say
> these wise words:
>
>
>>The Mozilla
>>community would be doing itself an enormous service by implementing some
>>simple quality assurance rules
>>
>
> This was discussed months ago - the general flavour of comments from
> developers was that it was impossible to prevent breakages because one
> would never know what other code would be broken by any given alteration.
>
> Personally, I don't believe a word of the above - I think that code should
> be verified, I.e. temporarily checked in and then tested for what other
> code it would break prior to it being accepted as a part of the Mozilla
> source code, and if it broke anything that was not purposefully intending
> to break, then it should be refused - short and simple.
>
> That way we will have good stability, as well as development, and we won't
> break features that have already become a part of Mozilla.
What are you complaining about. what you suggest is EXACTLY what is
being done. They put out nightlies and milestones for the exact purpose
of testing by a broad audience. Do you expect a beta or pre-release
version to be fully operational without bugs or inconsistensies? Am I
missing something? Anyone who can't tolerate the ups and down of Mozilla
developement shouldn't be using it. Use a released product instead
(netscape 4.78, 6.1, Opera or IE, whatever).
