It would help me if you could list the Mantis bug/crash reports that are keeping you from using 0.8.
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Jim Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > I left OSG first because the grid became unstable for people using the > current code as 0.8 nodes started being used. Has this problem been > addressed? > > I left Metro and returned to OSG (rc2) because after jumping into an 0.8 > upon returning you became a permanent cloud and had to relog. Has this > problem been addressed? > > I finally left OSG and put up my own grid on the current release because > my scripts will not work under 0.8, and I'm not going to waste time trying > to write to a moving target. I figured I could jump to places and then > relog to get home. Now I'm learning that you are planning on releasing > crap I won't even be able to jump into. > > What you should do is stop 0.8 dead in its tracks and produce an > intermediate release that can survive the 0.8 protocol changes but which > does not actually introduce any of them. This intermediate release should > fix enough bugs to induce people to move to it, but introduce no new > functionality. Then, once people have generally moved to a release that > won't be badly effected by 0.8 you can try introducing it. What you are > doing is subjecting people to your changes without any regard for their > needs or desires. People cannot ignore your changes simply by not using > the new release, therefore you are obligated to make those changes in a > manner that does not negatively impact people who are slow to update to > your latest and greatest (for whatever reason). > > You have no migration planning at all, and therefore effectively no > planning at all. (And your QA sucks too.) > > (I'm not trying to catch flies, I'm trying to kill cockroaches. Enough > people are playing nice-nice, and the results are not good. I'd like to 1) > see some of the programmers leave, and 2) see the procedures changed so > that it isn't the people who want to make new toys who set the development > agenda, such that 3) Opensim finally gets some QA.) > > > > On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Shaun T. Erickson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> It could, until just a couple days ago, but that's been lessened >> significantly. Now, it won't let you teleport to it, if you're coming from >> older code, if the destination is larger than 256x256. That eliminates a >> huge problem, right there. You get a nice, graceful refusal of the teleport >> and no crash. >> >> Now, it is still true, that if you wish to teleport from a 0.8, 256x256 >> region to a region larger than 256x256, you must be using a viewer that >> supports large regions. I don't think that is unreasonable. >> >> However, if it were possible for the large region to determine whether >> the incoming viewer is new enough to support it or not, then I would be in >> favor of it gracefully refusing teleports from viewers that do not. That >> would close the other vector for crashes due to old code. >> >> -ste >> >> P.S.: As the saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey, than you do >> with vinegar." Something to keep in mind. >> >> On 6/8/14, 7:56 AM, Jim Williams wrote: >> >>> What I do know is that 0.8 is giving people who do not use it grief. >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensim-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >> > > > > -- > No essence. No permanence. No perfection. Only action. > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
