I would like to make a suggestions to RunRev, and the reason I am
posting it here on the list is to see if other people agree with the
suggestion, and if so, I would ask you to let RunRev know that you
agree, maybe off-list if that's the most appropriate way.
The old Rev 1.1.1 engine has some glitches with Mac OSX Jaguar that
must be avoided. However, the problem is already fixed in the
engine--but there still haven't been any new releases to the engine.
I would say that waiting for new features is not too bad. However
many months you wait for a new capability is acceptable, since you
can work quite well with what you have now. No problem there, I think
people will be happy and patient and look forward to the great new
stuff all in good time. That's how I feel about it. But OS
incompatibilities are a different story--with something like that
which affects the features you currently have, you want a fix sooner.
And it may be possible that this kind of situation with Appearance
Manager or something else happens again, so I think considering a
long term strategy would be a good idea.
My proposal is for RunRev to have a strategy that prioritizes fixes
for this kind of major issue, so that normally the work would be
going on with new features and normal bug fixes for a future release
as usual (and not too much hurry on that) but when there is a big OS
glitch or something like that, a maintenance release could be offered
very soon, perhaps simply the last major version of Rev bundled with
the new MC engine and as few changes as are necessary to make that
possible. Hopefully the situation wouldn't arise often, but if it
did, having this kind of plan in place already would help. Plus, it
might even take off a bit of the pressure off feature releases since
people aren't also waiting for such vital fixes at the same time.
(Personally, I would prefer that there's not too much pressure on
people, it's better for the health.) So, I think there would be
advantages for both the customers and the developers in having this
kind of strategy.
Do you think that's a reasonable idea? RunRev, would you consider it?
Thanks,
Curry
(And P.S., just in case anyone would say well why not just get
Jaguar, yes, that's a way to do it, and I'm considering that right
now--last year, during October-December, it always seemed like Rev
would be released soon enough that it wouldn't be necessary. So I
will be pursuing that option, or using beta testers. But that still
doesn't take away from the need to have a strategy, since it may not
be convenient for everyone to upgrade OS right away for one reason or
another, and avoiding the glitches will still be an added
complication to development. So when the problem is fixed in the
engine, it is still necessary to focus on getting that fix to people
as soon as possible.
And P.P.S., to Toma or anyone who wants to keep track of progress, it
does help to subscribe to the MetaCard list too, then you can guage
generally how things are going although not exactly, plus you can try
out the non Rev-specific features with MC test releases.)
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
