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
