On 10/10/2009 04:08 PM, Neil wrote:
> Ken Rudolph wrote:
>> What's the difference between this and the actual release? Since I'm
>> not a techie, I chose not to be a beta tester; but I've been waiting
>> for the actual release, which I had heard was happening "in a week or
>> so". Apparently this still isn't the official release version?
> This is the first version that could technically become official. Until
> then it's basically just another beta. Although we have hardened users
> that test nightly builds which hopefully finds most of the major bugs,
> it's only when we let all the beta testers loose on the release
> candidate that we discover how reliable it actually is. After a week or
> so, we'll decide whether or not it's ready; if it's not, we fix, or more
> likely work around, as many bugs as we can and release another candidate
> and repeat the process. Eventually (hopefully we run out of bugs before
> we get bored of fixing them) we decide to make the latest candidate the
> official released version. Any subsequent major bugs will then have to
> wait for 2.0.1.
And works well enough, after testing for the past few days on test
machines, that I am now running 2.0rc1 (linux version) on this, my
primary work machine w/emails & archives going back over 5 years. Of
course I have critical bits backed up... but my point is that I'm
confident enough to run it on a daily basis.
That doesn't mean that something might not crash, or I won't encounter
an issue. I *does* mean that I'm sufficiently confident that 2.0rc1 (and
actually nearly any 2.0pre nightlies lately) is close enough to 2.0
final that I trust it with my daily work.
@Ken et al; If you don't feel comfortable testing a beta, or release
candidate, then I'd recommend that you stick with what you have now and
wait for the final release.
The purpose of asking for testers for beta & rc's is, as Neil pointed
out, so that 'users' that are familiar with testing participate.
At this stage (Neil etc will correct me if I'm wrong) it's important
to get 'users' to test outside of the development box & test in
regular/daily use & provide feedback to the developers (via bugzilla
preferably, or this group) as soon as they encounter a problem.
Note: I'm not a developer, I am a regular 'user' that personally uses
SeaMonkey 10-12 hours per day. I participate on at least 5-10 high
volume newsgroups and mail lists daily, have archived emails back to
2002, have commercial customers (linux and Windows) that _only_ run
SeaMonkey, etc. So it's important to me to see SeaMonkey 2.x succeed.
I've not run 1.1.x for many months now. I still keep 1.1.18 available
for testing & run 2.x and 1.1.x side-by-side when needed for comparison
and/or client support. However, even with the bugs still outstanding in
2.0 (and there will always be bugs), I'll stick with 2.0.
I just checked my crash reports (I also use the nightlies), and the last
actual crash report that I had in SeaMonkey 2.0 was Oct 1, 2009. However
that one doesn't count as I was testing & it involved Flash, and so the
last actual valid crash was in June.
So I'd encourage 'users' that are familiar SeaMonkey, know how to backup
your folders/directories, restore/reinstall SeaMonkey, and are are
willing to help test rc1 to please do so.
Running the litmus tests
(https://litmus.mozilla.org/run_tests.cgi?test_run_id=7) only provides a
limited/basic test of user funtionality. *Using* 2.0rc1 in our everyday
'user' environment & reporting issues as quickly as possible is
considerably more valuable overall (IMO).
support-seamonkey mailing list