Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: BUGS - ARGH
RE: BUGS - ARGH
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:15:51 +0100 (CET)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Fred Maxwell wrote:
> > If you can build it yourself, why use the 2.1 release code?
> The 2.1 code has been more thoroughly tested than the daily builds and the
> documentation reflects version 2.1.
We're drifting away from the topic, but I'll reply anyway. This thread
concerns Rockbox development, and I don't see any reason at all to perform
development and bug reports on older source code, unless it is also present in
the recent sources. Getting patches based on old sources means more work for
the people who apply them. I don't think we need to put more work on them.
> It's also not desirable for everyone to be running different daily builds.
> You want the core user group using the most recent release, beta testers use
> the most recent beta, and core developers running daily builds.
I disagree. I want a large crowd to run daily-builds. This way we don't have
to deal with beta-releases at all. Like for the 2.1 release. This way, we get
bug reports earlier and thus fix problems earlier.
> You may ask why. Well, suppose users X and Y report a serious problem
> resulting in data corruption or hardware damage. User X is running today's
> daily build while user Y is running one from four days ago. Based on that,
> you don't know if the problem exists in the 2.1 released code and whether a
> warning/recall needs to go out.
Sure we do. We just ask people, or we all try it for a while, or we find the
problem and see if that same problem was present already in the 2.1.
Besides, people who run daily-builds today do it because they WANT to live on
the edge, to have the latest and greatest. They risk getting hit but they also
get to try out the latest stuff early.
> There is a reason that major software companies release beta software rather
> than daily builds. Bug tracking becomes a nightmare otherwise.
The reason "major software companies" do that, is because they're slow,
they're closed-source and they have no connection with their users. Also,
"major software companies" work for money/profit, we don't.
We're open, we have a huge crowd of very technical and skilled users and we
have a huge amount of developers. I think we can deal with people running
daily builds just fine. (In fact, we even have a large amount of people
running custom builds based on recent CVS and that works fine too.) I can't
think of any specific problem we've got during Rockbox existance that would've
been handled a lot better if we were doing what you suggest. Can you?
-- Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/Received on 2003-12-17