Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 bugs buggy wrote: OTOH announcing the 2.2 releases on more than just our website (Freshmeat has only 2.1.3, the Linux Game Tome is at 2.1.1 for example) will reach a far wider audience and thus potential testers. Last time I checked, I don't think we have ever done such a thing before, and I wouldn't really know how to 'announce' a new release to them. When I announced it to several sites (last time I did is probably a year+ ago) I just wrote a short e-mail summarising what's new and linking to the downloads + change-log. That's all :D - - Kreuvf -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKBouG4y86f1GXLDwRAgKdAKCXGLxa9StIuD9N8lbb9jPsXDGi3wCghqSx DduJT23wZSBWPWMlfTeWXrg= =3VL9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On Saturday, 9 May 2009 at 15:12, bugs buggy wrote: The whole purpose of doing a release candidate (as opposed to another beta) is that to me, it is just as stable or more stable than 2.1 ever was when that was released. (Left a 4p AI game go on for 4+ hours with a release build, previous to that, it was a 2 hour game that I aborted.) If the release candidate falls on its face, then fine, maybe we should release another 2.1 version, but until that time, it would be quite unproductive to do that. So you want to do release builds then as well? I thought it was no release builds before release, not sure who said that though. OTOH announcing the 2.2 releases on more than just our website (Freshmeat has only 2.1.3, the Linux Game Tome is at 2.1.1 for example) will reach a far wider audience and thus potential testers. Last time I checked, I don't think we have ever done such a thing before, and I wouldn't really know how to 'announce' a new release to them. We have a http://developer.wz2100.net/wiki/ReleaseChecklist where some sites are listed. Most of those have a submit news link, though the freshmeat project is owned by Karmazilla (but perhaps you can also submit updates as logged in user), and for gamedev.net you probably also need an account. Most of those list a 2.1 version as newest, linux-gamers even 2.0.7. So... why don't people test 2.2? Because they like 2.1 better, or because they don't know about it? ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On Sunday, 10 May 2009 at 15:41, Dennis Schridde wrote: Am Sonntag, 10. Mai 2009 14:10:00 schrieb Christian Ohm: So you want to do release builds then as well? I thought it was no release builds before release, not sure who said that though. In fact it is very different from that: Always release builds, never anything else. I don't want to repeat the reasons again, so if you forgot, just ask me again. Huh? Are we talking about the same thing? For 2.2 beta1/2 the available Windows installers were only with debug builds, not release builds. While having release builds as well might be an option (though not one I want to discuss now), are you really arguing that not having debug builds is preferable? (And if that's the case, yes, I'd like some link/explanation, as I really can't remember any such discussion.) ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 09:43:43AM -0500, Zarel wrote: Let's just release 2.1.4. Seriously, I've never heard of dropping support for the current release branch just because you want everyone else playing the development branch, no matter how close the development branch is to release (and, again, I don't consider three weeks if we're lucky and nothing goes wrong to be close). Ah, the impatience of youth! What fraction of our development cycle is 3 weeks? If you are going to release another 2.1, do it. Just don't do it at the same time as 2.2 RC1. It's bad marketing. It dilutes both the impact and user testing of the RC release. -- Stephen Swaney sswa...@centurytel.net ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
Am Sonntag, 10. Mai 2009 16:43:43 schrieb Zarel: 2009/5/9 Christian Ohm chr@gmx.net: I don't think releasing 2.1.4 will result in much less _useful_ testing for 2.2. Yes, you might get more people to try 2.2, but if they are tricked into using it they'll just see it's unstable yet, and go back to 2.1 (if 2.1 isn't too unstable for them either) instead of giving useful bugreports. But with a 2.1.4 release those who don't want to test 2.2 get a better 2.1. What is it now? Devu, Christian, Kreuf, Per, me in support cybersphinx neutral Buggy, stiv against And while all that talking was going on, one could have created a hundred builds... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dennis Schridde wrote: Am Sonntag, 10. Mai 2009 16:43:43 schrieb Zarel: 2009/5/9 Christian Ohm chr@gmx.net: I don't think releasing 2.1.4 will result in much less _useful_ testing for 2.2. Yes, you might get more people to try 2.2, but if they are tricked into using it they'll just see it's unstable yet, and go back to 2.1 (if 2.1 isn't too unstable for them either) instead of giving useful bugreports. But with a 2.1.4 release those who don't want to test 2.2 get a better 2.1. What is it now? Devu, Christian, Kreuf, Per, me in support cybersphinx neutral Buggy, stiv against And while all that talking was going on, one could have created a hundred builds... After all team communication and coordination is essential. - - Kreuvf -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKBxSE4y86f1GXLDwRAqhWAJ9LO3b6eH5eQ2qOstVUS2F0U3ZwUQCgxIgn CMHNYiStoSmde6InRP5eTBo= =NzHm -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On 5/10/09, Zarel zare...@gmail.com wrote: Let's just release 2.1.4. Seriously, I've never heard of dropping support for the current release branch just because you want everyone else playing the development branch, no matter how close the development branch is to release (and, again, I don't consider three weeks if we're lucky and nothing goes wrong to be close). ... *Buginator's head explodes* [speaker]Clean up on the warzone dev list![/speaker] 2009/5/10 Dennis Schridde devuran...@gmx.net: Am Sonntag, 10. Mai 2009 14:10:00 schrieb Christian Ohm: So you want to do release builds then as well? I thought it was no release builds before release, not sure who said that though. In fact it is very different from that: Always release builds, never anything else. I don't want to repeat the reasons again, so if you forgot, just ask me again. I dunno. The policy I've been recommending is (and what we've been doing since 2.1.2, iirc): Release builds only for stable, RC Debug builds only for beta, alpha, everything else Or maybe both for RC. Ensures testers have proper tools for testing and can provide good feedback, but stable is stable enough for widespread use. 'Course, that's just my opinion - I have no idea what official policy is. And yes, I don't think I was here the last time you gave the reasons for always release builds, so I'd like to hear them again. On hindsight, I think we should go back to all release builds (or offer them both). No matter how many times you try to explain the difference between release debug builds, the bottom line is people just *think* the wrong thing/idea about when they play a debug build. Debug builds are fine for those that understand what they are, and more importantly, get the needed info from the assert, and the callstack, but the vast majority of our userbase don't. You can see all the assert screenshots in the forums. As I mentioned someplace, release builds aren't stripped, so that is a big plus. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 bugs buggy wrote: On 5/8/09, Kreuvf kre...@warzone2100.de wrote: bugs buggy wrote: 2.2 has been 'cooking' for a extremely long period of time. Pushing beta builds to a lackluster community response, and, what is worse is, people are still creating new content for 2.1, which won't work with 2.2. Has there ever benn some kind of announcement/news/blog entry to make sure that people _know_ about this? Something definite, something people can rely on ;) Besides the Front page announcing the beta candidates, and the global announcement in the forums, and the talk on the ML, then, no. And those announcements clearly state that the WRP recommends against creating new content for 2.1 as there will be no compatibility to 2.2? And ML talk is not visible (mind the quotation marks!) to the masses IMHO, forums is where all the action takes place. The global announcement (http://forums.wz2100.net/viewtopic.php?f=1t=2950) has a misleading subject (misleading only if you want to tell people to not create new 2.1 content). And the whole topic doesn't even mention any incompatibilities with 2.1, 2.1 isn't even mentioned at all. As I cover new versions on my site as well I read all the release announcements and I cannot remember _anything_ about the attitude of the WRP towards 2.1 and new content for it. Perhaps it is a good idea to explicitly state what's up with 2.1 with the release of the next upgrade for 2.1. Actually this is a good point for releasing another upgrade for 2.1 ;) Thanks for reading, - - Kreuvf -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKBVN94y86f1GXLDwRAh4xAKDFEe6ktgT2W0iJViwbHa7oRIyiQQCfSc3a x8BAQh2qrrlVXtIskzAfhSM= =EqZY -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On Friday, 8 May 2009 at 0:54, Zarel wrote: 2009/5/8 bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com: People are not going to test 2.2 if the 'most requested bugfixes' are fixed in 2.1. They have no motivation to upgrade. I should also mention that I accept this as a valid objection to 2.1.4, so there's little point in arguing further. I don't think releasing 2.1.4 will result in much less _useful_ testing for 2.2. Yes, you might get more people to try 2.2, but if they are tricked into using it they'll just see it's unstable yet, and go back to 2.1 (if 2.1 isn't too unstable for them either) instead of giving useful bugreports. But with a 2.1.4 release those who don't want to test 2.2 get a better 2.1. OTOH announcing the 2.2 releases on more than just our website (Freshmeat has only 2.1.3, the Linux Game Tome is at 2.1.1 for example) will reach a far wider audience and thus potential testers. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On 5/9/09, Christian Ohm chrx...@gmx.net wrote: On Friday, 8 May 2009 at 0:54, Zarel wrote: 2009/5/8 bugs buggy buginax...@gmail.com: People are not going to test 2.2 if the 'most requested bugfixes' are fixed in 2.1. They have no motivation to upgrade. I should also mention that I accept this as a valid objection to 2.1.4, so there's little point in arguing further. I don't think releasing 2.1.4 will result in much less _useful_ testing for 2.2. Yes, you might get more people to try 2.2, but if they are tricked into using it they'll just see it's unstable yet, and go back to 2.1 (if 2.1 isn't too unstable for them either) instead of giving useful bugreports. But with a 2.1.4 release those who don't want to test 2.2 get a better 2.1. Yes, there are going to be issues with 2.2. Just like there were issues for 2.1, 2.0 and all the way down the line. The whole purpose of doing a release candidate (as opposed to another beta) is that to me, it is just as stable or more stable than 2.1 ever was when that was released. (Left a 4p AI game go on for 4+ hours with a release build, previous to that, it was a 2 hour game that I aborted.) If the release candidate falls on its face, then fine, maybe we should release another 2.1 version, but until that time, it would be quite unproductive to do that. OTOH announcing the 2.2 releases on more than just our website (Freshmeat has only 2.1.3, the Linux Game Tome is at 2.1.1 for example) will reach a far wider audience and thus potential testers. Last time I checked, I don't think we have ever done such a thing before, and I wouldn't really know how to 'announce' a new release to them. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 bugs buggy wrote: 2.2 has been 'cooking' for a extremely long period of time. Pushing beta builds to a lackluster community response, and, what is worse is, people are still creating new content for 2.1, which won't work with 2.2. Has there ever benn some kind of announcement/news/blog entry to make sure that people _know_ about this? Something definite, something people can rely on ;) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFKBITc4y86f1GXLDwRAkeDAKDLYm+nYjvC9d1PXT7j4AHBvlDsGgCgsKya GFEsq+BksFGw43d/VZr+h/I= =pstX -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
Am Freitag, 8. Mai 2009 07:13:48 schrieb Stephen Swaney: Actually, releasing two versions should be approximately twice as much work. Build scripts are written and if no one broke them, then they will still work. Upload takes under an hour (depending on your connection). Why did we backport bugfixes to 2.1 at all, if we are so very determined to never release them? In fact, why do we backport any bugfixes? If we are so much against maintaining older branches, why don't we just release a 2.2 final, and continue with the 2.3 alphas/betas/rcs, to start 2.4 immediately after 2.3 final? Actually not all of the above is pure sarcasm. It has some valid point, imo. If attention is split so badly, and that is hurting us so much, we could as well not draw any attention from our latest efforts to something legacy. On the other hand, if we want to support legacy versions, the statement that they prevent testing of the next generation looks somewhat against the policy. --DevU signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On 5/8/09, Kreuvf kre...@warzone2100.de wrote: bugs buggy wrote: 2.2 has been 'cooking' for a extremely long period of time. Pushing beta builds to a lackluster community response, and, what is worse is, people are still creating new content for 2.1, which won't work with 2.2. Has there ever benn some kind of announcement/news/blog entry to make sure that people _know_ about this? Something definite, something people can rely on ;) Besides the Front page announcing the beta candidates, and the global announcement in the forums, and the talk on the ML, then, no. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On 5/7/09, Zarel zarexxx...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/7 bugs buggy bugixxx...@gmail.com: And I would like to remind everyone, that 2.2 is just as stable (if not more so) as 2.1 was at the time of its release. Are you sure of this? The forums are rife with people going back to 2.1 because 2.2 is too unstable. Complain all you want about the vagueness of their bug reports, but the fact remains that the bugs are there. - Zarel How about you compare apples to apples? Those are 'debug' builds, as you are well aware of, and I am sure I don't have to explain this to you, but since you brought it up... The main reason why people find the current 2.2 beta 'unstable' is it is a *debug* build. Debug builds assert. Release builds don't. That isn't exactly a news flash is it? So of course a *debug* build will *seem* more 'unstable' than a release build, it is *meant* to give us more information about *possible* issues. If we were to release a new 2.1 build and only do a *debug* build, you will pretty much see the same issues asserts, and, the forums will be wondering how 2.1 became so 'unstable'. If you look at trac, those (few) people that have reported issues, they are all pretty much assert issues, and some issues that were introduced a long time ago, but since we sit on builds for months at a time without a release, things slip past us. Perhaps to prove (or disprove) a point, we should have just a release version build of this forthcoming Release Candidate. The release versions should not have the .exe stripped, so it will still have enough debug information to find the issues (which AFAIK, is what we do now anyway). And to tie this all up, we pretty much all agreed in the past, that we should do ... I'd rather release early and often (with some bugs) than less often with less frequent testing. But, we are falling for the same mistakes we made in the past, and things are getting in the code base, with little (or no) testing, and even fewer people willing to test. Then when we do finally release, we then get the long needed/wanted bug reports. There is only one solution for this, and that is to : Release early release often! ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
2009/5/7 bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com: How about you compare apples to apples? Those are 'debug' builds, as you are well aware of, and I am sure I don't have to explain this to you, but since you brought it up... The main reason why people find the current 2.2 beta 'unstable' is it is a *debug* build. Debug builds assert. Release builds don't. That isn't exactly a news flash is it? So of course a *debug* build will *seem* more 'unstable' than a release build, it is *meant* to give us more information about *possible* issues. If we were to release a new 2.1 build and only do a *debug* build, you will pretty much see the same issues asserts, and, the forums will be wondering how 2.1 became so 'unstable'. See, the problem is that people are reporting that the game crashes whenever people click Ignore on the assert. Since clicking Ignore causes a crash for these asserts, I'd think that nearly every assert corresponds to a crash in the release version. - Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
By the way, guys, is it okay if we release 2.1.4 concurrently with 2.2 RC1? Buggy and stiv seem to be very against the idea, Cybersphinx sounds neutral, Per sounds for it. Here's why I think releasing 2.1.4 is a good idea: - As mentioned earlier in the 2.2 RC1 thread, it's not as stable as 2.1 yet. - 2.1.4 has one of the most requested bugfixes - namely, how the interface hides itself whenever someone changes color/team/position/etc in multiplayer game staging - We're not going to be releasing a 2.2 stable for at least another three weeks - people should get an interim stable release. - It theoretically shouldn't be more work than just making a release. I mean, it sounds like we're dropping support for 2.1 either way. I can handle most of the work - I just need people to compile and upload source tarballs, Windows binaries, and Mac binaries. Giel? EvilGuru? If we do it at the same time as 2.2 RC2, it shouldn't be too much more work, right? - Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On 5/8/09, Zarel zare...@gmail.com wrote: By the way, guys, is it okay if we release 2.1.4 concurrently with 2.2 RC1? Buggy and stiv seem to be very against the idea, Cybersphinx sounds neutral, Per sounds for it. Here's why I think releasing 2.1.4 is a good idea: - As mentioned earlier in the 2.2 RC1 thread, it's not as stable as 2.1 yet. - 2.1.4 has one of the most requested bugfixes - namely, how the interface hides itself whenever someone changes color/team/position/etc in multiplayer game staging - We're not going to be releasing a 2.2 stable for at least another three weeks - people should get an interim stable release. - It theoretically shouldn't be more work than just making a release. I mean, it sounds like we're dropping support for 2.1 either way. I can handle most of the work - I just need people to compile and upload source tarballs, Windows binaries, and Mac binaries. Giel? EvilGuru? If we do it at the same time as 2.2 RC2, it shouldn't be too much more work, right? - Zarel My biggest objection to having another 2.1 release is that it will serve no real purpose, besides for us having to deal with another 2.1 release. (More bug reports from 2.1.x, even though they most likely have been fixed in 2.2, and whatever else... and I don't have my epitaph ready either! :P) People are not going to test 2.2 if the 'most requested bugfixes' are fixed in 2.1. They have no motivation to upgrade. I rather have everyone hit 2.2 RC *hard*, and for the next 3 weeks, file as many bug reports as possible, so we can release a better 2.2 release. This will be much better for our project, in both the short and long run. Hope that clarifys things. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 11:30:47PM -0500, Zarel wrote: By the way, guys, is it okay if we release 2.1.4 concurrently with 2.2 RC1? Buggy and stiv seem to be very against the idea, Cybersphinx sounds neutral, Per sounds for it. [16:28] per it is hardly effortless [16:28] per and when looking more closely at the bugs fixed since 2.1.3, i'm not so sure anymore Here's why I think releasing 2.1.4 is a good idea: - As mentioned earlier in the 2.2 RC1 thread, it's not as stable as 2.1 yet. Compile 2.2 RC1 with the asserts off. That seemed to be the issue, judging from the IRC conversation. - 2.1.4 has one of the most requested bugfixes - namely, how the interface hides itself whenever someone changes color/team/position/etc in multiplayer game staging I concede to your claim that this is the most important bugfix in the history of software development, but isn't it also in 2.2? - We're not going to be releasing a 2.2 stable for at least another three weeks - people should get an interim stable release. 3 Weeks - that's like 21 days? - It theoretically shouldn't be more work than just making a release. I mean, it sounds like we're dropping support for 2.1 either way. Aren't we? And if we are, why not get on with 2.2? I can handle most of the work - I just need people to compile and upload source tarballs, Windows binaries, and Mac binaries. Giel? EvilGuru? If we do it at the same time as 2.2 RC2, it shouldn't be too much more work, right? Actually, releasing two versions should be approximately twice as much work. -- Stephen Swaney sswa...@centurytel.net ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] 2.2 RC1 scheduled for release this weekend
2009/5/8 Stephen Swaney sswa...@centurytel.net: [16:28] per it is hardly effortless [16:28] per and when looking more closely at the bugs fixed since 2.1.3, i'm not so sure anymore It seems a bit disingenuous to quote per from before I explained what the bugs were. Here are some quotes from _after_ he said that: [16:27] per and when looking more closely at the bugs fixed since 2.1.3, i'm not so sure anymore [16:27] per which bug is it that warrants the release? [16:28] Zarel * Fix: No longer shows map and hides interface when others switch color/position/team/etc in multiplayer staging area. (r7257) [16:28] Zarel That's the most requested bugfix in #warzone2100-games [16:30] per Zarel: if EvilGuru and Giel agree to spend the effort to make builds, i see now reason not to do it [16:31] Zarel Meh. What if we release it concurrently with 2.2 RC1? [16:31] per well, that kinda has a precedent, doesn' it ;) [16:31] Zarel ? [16:31] per i mean, we did that for the previous release [16:31] per so why not Compile 2.2 RC1 with the asserts off. That seemed to be the issue, judging from the IRC conversation. This is why not: See, the problem is that people are reporting that the game crashes whenever people click Ignore on the assert. Since clicking Ignore causes a crash for these asserts, I'd think that nearly every assert corresponds to a crash in the release version. ^^ which is the bigger issue. I concede to your claim that this is the most important bugfix in the history of software development, but isn't it also in 2.2? True, but 2.2 is a significant time off. 3 Weeks - that's like 21 days? :P That's at least. Aren't we? And if we are, why not get on with 2.2? We don't really know for sure if 2.2 is actually going to be rushed out that fast. While I currently have no objections, who knows what could turn up? We're getting quite a few bug reports from the allegedly small number of testers Buggy complains about. Actually, releasing two versions should be approximately twice as much work. I'd assume that making a release is one of those things for which the amount of time spent preparing for it is significantly greater than the amount of time spent during it. It's kind of like writing an e-mail. Writing a six-sentence message at once is a lot easier than writing one sentence each day for six days, since most of the time is spent in opening the e-mail client, going to Drafts, opening the message, collecting your thoughts, etc, etc. Heck, I wouldn't even need to say I'd assume - I know from experience that two releases at once is easier than two releases separately. The only part I don't know how to do is upload to Gna (or build 2.1, but as long as it isn't significantly different from building 2.2, my experience applies), and I've uploaded to other places often enough to know it's easier to do concurrently than separately. 2009/5/8 bugs buggy buginato...@gmail.com: People are not going to test 2.2 if the 'most requested bugfixes' are fixed in 2.1. They have no motivation to upgrade. I should also mention that I accept this as a valid objection to 2.1.4, so there's little point in arguing further. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
