MCBastos wrote:
Interviewed by CNN on 09/07/2011 12:41, Ray_Net told the world:
This is exactly my opinion ... developpers are only interested to
implement new gadgets instead of fixing bugs. SM is full of bugs that
would never been corrected ... because those bug did not stop SM
working. But those bugs is a real annoyance.
That was not my point at all. What I meant was that, in the
rapid-release train system, you don't go back to older versions to fix
bugs -- you fix them only on new releases. That avoids duplication of work.
And about versioning schemes: I think a data-based version number system
would be better in the long run. Right now, anybody can remember that
the latest Firefox release is 5. But as the numbers rise, it gets harder
to tell them apart. Is the latest Chrome 13 or 14? How outdated is
Chrome 10? I'm not sure. But I sure know that Ubuntu 9.04 is more than
two years old.
Let's call a spade a spade!
The most appropriate label for the "rapid-release train versioning
system" is
"The CONSTANT BETA system".
Especially with your suggestion of never fixing bugs on an existing
version, "It'll (maybe) be fixed in the next (or some future) release"
there is no hope of ever achieving any bugwise stable plateaus.
Of course SM is constrained in this, by it's need to follow along
the lead of FF and TB in its internal structure, and thus most
external features and development path and type of label progression.
(i.e. if FF/TB introduces a new feature or reorganizes the code base
and ups its version number, then SM dare not keep its current version
number and only change the modification level number)
--
Rostyk
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
