code reader wrote: i can't veryfy this claim, but assuming it's correct, it means the release process went wrong
Your attempt at logic amuses me.
code reader wrote: i can't veryfy this claim, but assuming it's correct, it means the release process went wrong
code reader wrote: [EDIT: this is a response to dhn]
this is an "either/or" kinda thing.
EITHER - we dont need beta at all: after all, the bug-tracker was opened long before beta-1, and savvy users were submitting bug reports ever since,
OR - beta is needed: after all, by packaging a beta-version, and openning a support forum, the number of people that installed v3 and played with it was increases by (my guess) at least an order of magnitude.
code reader wrote: well, if the 2nd possibility is the right one (and if not, then why even bother to package a beta version in the first place?), then i stand by my statement: reaching the point where the beta-1 package is not relevant any more before releasing beta-2 is a release-cycle-management mistake.
code reader wrote: i didnt say it's criminal. i didn't yell at anyone for making it, i didnt blame and i didn't whine. i just offered my opinion that something should have been done differently.
code reader wrote: otoh, refusing to acknowledge any mistake, and making statements like "your attempt at logic amuses me" is a behavior more often associated with a republican white-house administration than with an open-source community.
sorry.naderman wrote: I think the person refusing to acknowledge any mistake in this topic is you (your false statement on holding beta2 back being a release-cycle-management mistake if beta1 is "irrelevant"). So no need to insult us.
code reader wrote: otoh, refusing to acknowledge any mistake, and making statements like "your attempt at logic amuses me" is a behavior more often associated with a republican white-house administration than with an open-source community.