Discussion of general topics related to the new version and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Forum rules
Discussion of general topics related to the new release and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
oldlock wrote:
I don't think that is necessarily true, as this is only release candidate 1, it cannot be expected to have all it's i's dotted & t's crossed ..
... however, "Release Candidate" implies the above.
Notwithstanding the large commit from Acyd Burn yesterday, I doubt that RC1 will be ready this weekend, but there's a good chance of it being ready next week(end) sometime if we see some other large commits. That is, unless the commit was all the real bugs and everything left in the bugtracker is just support requests... I don't know, as I can't seem to access the main site at the moment (error 504).
oldlock wrote:
I don't think that is necessarily true, as this is only release candidate 1, it cannot be expected to have all it's i's dotted & t's crossed ..
... however, "Release Candidate" implies the above.
Release Candidate implies that it is in a releasable condition, with only minor issues unresolved. There may even be many minor issues, but if they are all extremely esoteric issues, they may not be worth holding up a release. There are a number of bugs open which I believe are worth blocking an RC1 release, but the total count doesn't need to be down to zero to justify RC1.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
A release candidate is a candidate for a gold release. It's not a test version to find last minute bugs, rather it's a test to see if it's finished. Therefore, all efforts to close bugs need to be completed before the RC is made available to the public. RC1 could very well be the Gold release if all goes well.
I've done testing for several large companies, and a number of smaller projects. Not one project has ever gone into release/production with a bug count of zero. Esoteric bugs and those that are unlikely to be replicated in a large scale which are also (in both cases) not capable of serious damage to the data or underlying systems are often left for post-release updates. It's not perfect, but neither is software.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Martin Blank wrote:
I've done testing for several large companies, and a number of smaller projects. Not one project has ever gone into release/production with a bug count of zero. Esoteric bugs and those that are unlikely to be replicated in a large scale which are also (in both cases) not capable of serious damage to the data or underlying systems are often left for post-release updates. It's not perfect, but neither is software.
I work in the same industry. I've been in QA/testing for 7 years now. There's a big difference between what you are talking about and what we have here. Companies have budgets and deadlines to stick to. In the case here there is no profit nor a deadline. It will be ready when it's ready. Therefore they can take as long as they want.
