Subject:
|
Re: NQC beta test release policy
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:34:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1419 times
|
| |
|
|
First of all, I don't think there's anything wrong with not releasing
binaries
of a beta release, be it for linux or any other platform. Of
course, if a large
sector of the user base is on mac and windows and
therefore cannot build
their own binaries, it is undoubtably a good idea to
release binaries for these
platforms.
My point was about the fact that the
beta release is not open source, which,
IMHO, somewhat defeats the idea of
using a Free Software licence, one of
the main intentions of which is to
provide more stable final releases.
I can understand that because of the NQC
source code's complexity and
sparse commenting, the amount of external
contribution to the source
is going to be relatively small, but I believe
that closed source betas only
make such contribution more difficult.
>
The exclusion of linux and source from beta isn't really a result of any
policy, but just to make things more convenient for me.
> I don't have • 24/7 access to a linux box, so making a linux release usually
> delays • things a couple of days until I can get a chance to do the build.
> Early • on, beta releases came out pretty fast and were short lived so
> adding even • a couple of days of delay to the beta release process seemed
>
counter-productive.
>
> For various reasons the source release is tied to • the linux release:
>
> * The source release requires the Makefile to be • updated and verified -
> this only happens on the linux build since mac/win • use a CodeWarrior
> project file.
>
> * The source release takes several • steps - including building default
> versions of the parser files, etc. All • of this is automated by some
> scripts and Makefiles I have running under • Linux. I'm sure I could
> automate it under mac or win as well, but if it • ain't broke...
>
> * Most 'porting' of NQC takes the form of moving the • Linux release to
> another Unix or Unix-like platform. This is why the • source release is
> made as a .tar.gz file rather than a .zip or .sit file. • Its just one more
> reason to tie the linux and source releases together • from a process
> standpoint.
>
> Overall this means there's a non-trivial • 'cost' associated with including
> linux and/or source releases in the • beta.
>
> As for excluding the non mac/win users from the beta, • historically I never
> felt this was too big a deal. In the NQC • demographic, windows users by
> far outnumber all other platforms combined. • I've only continued to
> release mac as beta since I build it anyway for my • own regression tests
> (which are done on a mac). In fact, I've even been • considering
> eliminating the mac beta.
>
> In theory, not releasing • source would make bug fixes harder. However,
> historically there's not • much evidence to suggest a beta source release
> would matter. To my • recollection no bug has been found during a beta test
> period (not counting • features which were known up front to be only
> partially implemented at • beta, etc). There have only been a handful of
> actual bugs in NQC itself • (in over a year and something like 5 point
> releases). In short, the beta • test doesn't really shake out many bugs -
> its really more of a safety net • and allows me to sometimes get new
> features (such as the 4x download) • tested on different hardware before
> releasing.
>
> There also hasn't • been a lot of external contribution on bug fixes. This
> is by no means a • complaint - the documentation in the NQC source is
> extermely sparse. If I • hadn't written it myself, I'd never try fixing
> bugs in it. Bugs have been • rare enough, and easy enough to reproduce so
> far that there really isn't a • need for other people to spend time helping
> me debug it.
>
> The area • of greatest contribution so far has been getting NQC ported to
> other • platforms. This has lead to a more portable implementation of
>
PSerial_unix.cpp, and in general has helped the Makefile evolve a bit. I
don't think beta source releases would impact these porting efforts one
way or another.
>
> As a final note, this latest beta has been running a • lot longer than
> previous ones, and that perhaps is causing some linux • users to be
> anxious. The reason its running so long is that around the • holidays I was
> too busy to do anything with NQC, and lately I've been • cramming more
> features into it (such as a 'switch' statement). Hopefully, • things will
> return pretty soon to a much shorter beta cycle and people • won't have to
> wait so long for linux and source releases.
>
> Dave • Baum
>
--
Leonard Stiles
email: lstiles@hotpop.com
ICQ: 28845586
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NQC beta test release policy
|
| I'm combining two replies in the thread into a single message... (...) I agree completely that philisophically a beta release of free software should also be free software. I have been cutting corners on this with NQC out of praticality. There is a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | NQC beta test release policy
|
| As this is my first post to this newsgroup, I thought I'd start by saying how wonderful I think nqc is etc. I got the RIS 1.5 for xmas and had nqc up and running in no time on my linux system. As well as being an excellent language and bytecode (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
