Chipp:
What I didn't mention about Ubuntu's procedure is the following. It
after release they find significant bugs, they correct them in a new
"bugfix" version, submitted to the normal procedures of global testing.
However, it is the exception rather than the rule. This is NOT what I
suggested in my original proposal, but the preparedness to make
exceptions in this way if really necessary would also allay your fears
about stability I imagine.
But I am still not convinced that it would be necessary in the kind of
system I proposed. That bugs should occur is natural and normal, even
with the best prevention. What matters is the TURNAROUND, i.e. the time
between discovering the bug, fixing it, and returning the fix to the
user. Three months (or in the case of Linux, 2 years or more) is not
good enough. If there was anything wrong with post-production patches
downloaded in the way I suggest, you would soon know about it!** And
provided they were given absolute priority for correction and the
issuing of new patches, the system would still be better than the
current one.
[** And it should be remembered that even good beta testing doesn't
catch everything anyway. A great number of bugs are found post-release,
and always will be. But hopefully, these should be the least significant
bugs.]
Bob
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
