The status of 6.5.1

[Richmond]

On 18/01/14 18:08, Roger Eller wrote:
> I agree with you on most of that, but there are enough goodness in 6.5.1
> that I use often, that I am glad not to be waiting for it in a future
> killer IDE.

Yes, there is a lot of goodness. What is probably worng is
simply a a matter of labelling.

6.5.1 should be labelled as an "on the road to a smashing, perfect 7"
rather than what it is.

Richmond.

> Too fast and furious, indeed.  There's not enough time to test every
> pre-existing feature.  There needs to be an automated monkey machine to run
> each new version through.
>
> ~Roger
> On Jan 18, 2014 8:40 AM, "Richmond" <richmondmathewson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Recently several problems have come to light with LC 6.5.1;
>> in fact quite a long time after 6.5.1 was supposed to be a completed
>> thing; and
>> one of those things (mouseColor) is "a step backwards".
>>
>> Now the question that has to be asked about any release of Livecode in
>> light of this is
>> all a bit embarrassing, especially for RunRev.
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Before I go any further I should like to point out that I really don't
>> have any particular axe
>> to grind as I am currently developing with LC 4.5, which serves all my
>> needs just now.
>>
>> However, come the day when I fell that an upgrade is both highly desirable
>> and/or unavoidable
>> (read the word "Unicode" in here somewhere) and I have the money to pay
>> for it, my axe will
>> need grinding.
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> How far should we ever trust what RunRev assures us is a "done deal" when
>> it comes to a version release?
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> In the past I have said, in one way or another, "too fast, too furious",
>> and it seems pretty clear that that is
>> the case again.
>>
>> So, instead of a mad scramble to get out a version 7, a period of
>> retrenchment would seem called through, with a far longer
>> period of beta-testing, and a more rigorous one at that.
>>
>> -----------------------
>>
>> Looking at RunRev's post fund-raiser history I see an attempt to belt out
>> as many of the funding goals as quickly as possible;
>> and that, in one respect is admirable, especially with the feeling that
>> there might be a lot of "I want what I funded RIGHT NOW" types
>> slavering at the door.
>>
>> In another respect it is beginning to produce an uncomfortable feeling
>> that ALL releases since 5.5.5 might be of beta quality.
>>
>> Now as RunRev already have their mitts of the crowd-sourced money they
>> don't really have to run hell for leather;
>> I wonder how I, for one, would go about telling RunRev that as they hadn't
>> reached all their goals licketty-split they
>> had to reimburse my money: that is, quite obviously ridiculous; and as I,
>> for all my acidulated comments, am a
>> "true believer" in Livecode and the capabilities of RunRev, I would far
>> rather wait for the "killer IDE" than a succession
>> of slightly botched jobs.
>>
>> I hope that the folk at RunRev realise this posting is NOT meant as a
>> 'rubbish job', but a bit of friendly advice, which I have
>> a feeling that quite a few others on this Use-List might be feeling, but,
>> for various reasons, might not want to state quite so
>> baldly as I have.
>>
>> Richmond Mathewson.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
>> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
>> subscription preferences:
>> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode