Author Topic: How about a stable version of CB (Read 24779 times)

quBit · « **on:** November 16, 2007, 08:29:12 pm »

Dear developer,

Before I write my message I must express my appreciation and enthusiasm regarding the work on Code::Blocks IDE. My point is that everyday you release a new version which is incompatible with it being a serious development tool. Wouldn't it be much more better not to release a daily build and to work on a set of well defined requirements ? My second point, is that there are A LOT of features that you seem to focus in parallel and most of them work in a manner that cannot make C::B a serious competitor to commercial IDEs. I am sure that you aim to have a release and a standard for your own work and not to remain to the stage of infinite nightly builds.

kelo81 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2007, 03:25:57 pm »

Are you saying that CodeBlocks is not a serious competitor?, I finally found in Codeblocks all the features that where missing in the MSVC IDE itself, like integration with several compilers, things like "code completion" working for EVERY C++ compiler under ANY SUPPORTED OS's. So, tell me quBit, why do you think C::B is not a serious competitor, if you can see that most OpenSource projects are using it as a favorite tool for multiplatform builds... appart of the amazing Eclipse of course.

In fact, if you see that there are some unestable features: Why don't you just try to improve them instead of posting those messages in the forum?, C::B is an OpenSource project, that means everyone can take a look at the code and try the make it better... that's the most important feature an OpenSource project may have. A year ago, CodeBlocks was a smaller project, without even a half of the actual features... the next year, I think it will be really better, and the following year too... and allways for free.

MSVC has a good IDE... but they don't improve the product, each release they make is worst... Thousands of MB's and also you have to download hundreds of "security updates" every week... that's NOT a serious tool!

cacb · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2007, 06:57:23 pm »

Quote from: quBit on November 16, 2007, 08:29:12 pm

Dear developer,

Before I write my message I must express my appreciation and enthusiasm regarding the work on Code::Blocks IDE. My point is that everyday you release a new version which is incompatible with it being a serious development tool. Wouldn't it be much more better not to release a daily build and to work on a set of well defined requirements ? My second point, is that there are A LOT of features that you seem to focus in parallel and most of them work in a manner that cannot make C::B a serious competitor to commercial IDEs. I am sure that you aim to have a release and a standard for your own work and not to remain to the stage of infinite nightly builds.

I also appreciate the hard work and enthusiasm put into Code::Blocks. I am talking about it to all my colleagues using MSVC, and I am using it for a private project making a portable Windows/Linux application. It works great, although I am now way behind on the builds (4237 on Win and 4066 on Kubuntu).

I would have an easier job convincing new people of its greatness (it *is* great!) if an up to date stable version existed, since I would be able to simply tell them "download version 2.x" or whatever it would be. So my recommendation is to pause new development for a while (say 1 month), produce a nice and stable version that most people can be happy with, and link to it on the front page of http://www.codeblocks.org. Then continue with the development.

In general, a stable release every ~6 months or so would be perfect for me. Even once per year would be fine.

But don't get me wrong: This is one of the more interesting projects I have encountered. A portable IDE is just what lots of people need, myself included. Thanks one more time for all your efforts!

XayC · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2007, 07:23:34 pm »

The lack of recent stable version (release, call it like you want) of Code::Blocks, in my opinion, is damaging CB.

I was recently thinking to propose the use of CB in a open software project which supports both Windows and Linux, they use MSVC for Windows and make for Linux. But I can't propose a IDE if it has not a release or something like that.

This made me think about the fact that a CB release should be provided as soon as possible, you can't ask other people to use an IDE which comes only as a nightly build.
Also maybe developers should think about changing the release schedule to a time-based one from the current that is features-based.

It would be nice to know what developers or Mandrav (who would decide about the releases) think about this. Don't you think it would greatly help CB to spread around the world having a release? Am I missing some good reason to delay the release of a stable version?

Thanks, XayC

mandrav · « **Reply #4 on:** November 17, 2007, 07:34:48 pm »

The reasons on why it's taking us so long are clearly stated on the main site (well, plus some real-life issues that held some of us back for some periods).
Our main goal is to have a stable SDK. Only then a new release will see the light of day. People wanting to make their own plugins have to be certain that they will work as-is, at least until our next major release.
Towards that goal, a huge step has been made these days by incorporating the new logging system. A couple of things are left and I guess then we could plan for a release. Hopefully it won't take us long so stay tuned

.

XayC · « **Reply #5 on:** November 17, 2007, 10:12:00 pm »

Yes, having a stable SDK is indeed a good reason to wait before making a release.
Thanks for clarifying this point.

Regards, XayC

JGM · « **Reply #6 on:** November 17, 2007, 11:14:43 pm »

Quote from: quBit on November 16, 2007, 08:29:12 pm

Wouldn't it be much more better not to release a daily build and to work on a set of well defined requirements ?

I love seeing updates every day, is great to know this is a really active project, and not like other projects that take 3 year to release something that works while this works better every day!

cacb · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2007, 02:25:43 am »

Quote from: JGM on November 17, 2007, 11:14:43 pm

I love seeing updates every day, is great to know this is a really active project, and not like other projects that take 3 year to release something that works while this works better every day!

According to the web pages, the last stable release was dated Oct 25, 2005. That is now more than 2 years ago. :shock:

Although the nightly builds mostly work well (I have tried a few), I cannot see how to persuade an open source project, or even a company to start using it without a stable release.

If it takes another month to make a stable SDK, then I think it is good. If takes much longer than the remainder of 2007 to make a stable release of C::B, I would suggest the plans be reconsidered. I support the idea of a time based release schedule.

The reason for saying this is that I would love to see C::B becoming a success soon, also in commercial use....! In any case, I will stay tuned :wink:

gd_on · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2007, 12:24:14 pm »

I completely understand all the reasons why there is not still a stable release. Myself, for my own projects, I use the nightlies, almost every one, and I'm very happy with them. But I have not been able to convince my company to install C::B at work as the default IDE. Their reason : no stable release (previous one too old, outdated)

, no full self install (with MinGW for windows for example) ....
If you compare with Thunderbird or Firefox (these two softs are for official use in my company), they release from time to time a new stable version (for different reasons, and sometimes they say it's a security release (

, oups, as Micro$oft). With TB or FF, if you wish, you can also work with nightlies. Myself, I work with both type of version : the stable one at work, and the nightlies at home (where I'm free to do what I want) because I maintain a Thunderbird theme and want it to be ready each time there is a new official release.
So in a few words : at home, no problems to work with C::B.

At work, practically forbidden to use C::B.

gd_on

quBit · « **Reply #9 on:** November 19, 2007, 01:53:40 am »

Well people, my point seems to be understood. C::B seems or promises to be the single viable solution for a free IDE on the Windows platform. DevCPP is old and not maintained any more. wxDevCPP is almost DevCPP and is too tightly coupled with wxWidgets which, although still with a large user-base, is an obsolete framework (new lightweight toolkits which target strictly GUI, such as SmartWin or Win32-Generics which make use of modern C++ techniques, are preferred). There are many more examples and I don't even want to think about the VS Express.
Good luck to developers and I hope they find the time to finalize the work in a decent period of time. I think a version which is stable has some quality or corectness guarantees (at least implicit) for its features would drive much more attention than maintaining a user base by keeping them occupied with nightly builds.
It would be a shame not to have such a promising project as C::B on the open-source "market", laughing at the commercial IDEs for which developers pay hundreds or thousands of dollars (or euros in my case) and they are not even what you wished for.

Best regards, quBit.

Morphius Faydal · « **Reply #10 on:** November 20, 2007, 10:20:52 pm »

Quote from: quBit on November 19, 2007, 01:53:40 am

Well people, my point seems to be understood. C::B seems or promises to be the single viable solution for a free IDE on the Windows platform. DevCPP is old and not maintained any more. wxDevCPP is almost DevCPP and is too tightly coupled with wxWidgets which, although still with a large user-base, is an obsolete framework (new lightweight toolkits which target strictly GUI, such as SmartWin or Win32-Generics which make use of modern C++ techniques, are preferred).

You do realize That Code::Blocks is a wxWidgets project, right? And what's wrong with wxWidgets?

thomas · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2007, 10:09:40 am »

Quote from: Morphius Faydal on November 20, 2007, 10:20:52 pm

And what's wrong with wxWidgets?

Don't get me started

MortenMacFly · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2007, 02:01:12 pm »

Quote from: thomas on November 21, 2007, 10:09:40 am

Quote from: Morphius Faydal on November 20, 2007, 10:20:52 pm
And what's wrong with wxWidgets?
Don't get me started

Please someone: Block any further comments of Thomas concerning wxWidgets... faaaast!!! ;-)

LeRoi · « **Reply #13 on:** November 21, 2007, 05:11:59 pm »

I totally agree with "quBit", "XayC" and "cacb"

Code::blocks is a great IDE, with great features, and native execution on multiple plateforms

but, trying to get familiar with CB, I found my self obliged to mention some points about code::blocks :
* the latest stable release of CB goes back to Oct 25, 2005, wich -as a personal point of view- is a long time, espacially when considering all the new features that have been implemented since that date

Quote

I love seeing updates every day, is great to know this is a really active project

* well, that's true, but no one will update it's CB svn build every day !!, maybe to get rid of a corrected bug, but than again, he may get new ones, and you all know that the last thing that a programmer wants to take car of, is the instability of the IDE(I'm not saying CB nighty builds are instables)
when I tried to install a nightly build the first time, I got some real problems, with CB, the wxWidgets and the compiler(s)
Poeple are often waiting for an all-in-one package. There are so many steps, and time to make a helloworld wxwidget application that it can be frustrating to any new comer to CB. compiling wxwidgets with the custom settings, installing and configuring the compiler, setting up the debugger(a nightmare in somecases) to finally get CB to debug correctly an application.
when compared to MS VS or Delphi, ..., you write the code, you type F9 and bingo ....

Im not writing this just to criticize CB and it's authors, I like CB, I really like it for many many reasons, and that's why I'm posting here, so after saying my points, I will make some suggestions

:
* I'm not against daily updates, but strongly against 2years+ stable updates ! 6 mounths for stable releases seems to be a great cycle .
* why not to put more effort on the wiki, it's very important for new developpers, and sometimes, it lacks for informations, and the user have to go through the forum ...

well nothing to says more, you are doing a great job, keep working, and I'm hoping to see a a stable version soon :lol:

dje · « **Reply #14 on:** November 21, 2007, 08:20:16 pm »

Quote from: LeRoi on November 21, 2007, 05:11:59 pm

but no one will update it's CB svn build every day !!

I do !
Less than 2 mn to be up to date, it is worth !

Dje

rickg22 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 21, 2007, 08:33:12 pm »

I'm anxiously waiting for the final version. I'm quite sure that once it sees the light it will be a revolution comparable to Firefox. Having in mind that the project is only 3 years old (at least starting from beta4), I'd say it's worth waiting for the final release.

quBit · « **Reply #16 on:** November 22, 2007, 01:07:41 am »

Since C::B aims to be platform-independent, there's no problem in using wxWidgets, my issue was for UIs on a Windows platform for which wxWidgets is not a happy choice. Now, please do not drive the discussion in the direction of discussing UI toolkits, my point was that C::B is an ergonomic IDE which is not coupled with any toolkit for developing UI applications. How it was built, has little or no importance for the person who uses it to develop something. Personally I do not like wxWidgets (on a Win32 platform). I prefer lightweight toolkits which target only the UI logic. I have my reasons which I am not going to discuss here and neither should other people who participate in this topic's discussion.

Please remember the most basic rule: A developer MUST have a reliable tool both from a psychological perspective (aka stable version) and from a concrete one (aka some form of guarantees: many people are using it and it works fine or it has some corectness proofs). He must focus on the work he does and not on the tool that he is working with. The tool must serve him well. If you are focusing more on the IDE than on what really matters (the program that you are writing) than either you are writing a 'hello world' program, either you should look for some other tool to help you reach your objective and not to distract you. The beginner always discovers and tests new things, while the professional thinks about the best solution. Having a good quality IDE is a more sensible issue than most people think. It is not a coincidence that commercial IDEs cost so much. Have you heard of a developer that is 100% satisfied with its IDE?
A forum user posted in this topic's thread that he loves to see frequent updates. Well, nightly builds are not updates as in the accepted meaning of the term 'update' in the software development world. Although they 'update', they are not 'updates'. An update is a patch to a well established set of 100% functional features which changes or adds something. Bugs can always be present or can even be dormant for years, but in a release stage bugs are not assumed !!! In any other case, the project is either in alpha stage, either in beta stage and is preparing for a release after its users' feedback.

Still waiting for a final version of C::B :wink:. Keep up the good work.

MortenMacFly · « **Reply #17 on:** November 22, 2007, 09:35:24 am »

Quote from: LeRoi on November 21, 2007, 05:11:59 pm

* why not to put more effort on the wiki, it's very important for new developpers, and sometimes, it lacks for informations, and the user have to go through the forum ...

You know how a WiKi works, don't you?! I wonder if you have updated the WiKi after you had found "solutions" in the forum. The WiKi is for everyone. So please do and don't just claim others to do.
With regards, Morten.

dr snuggles · « **Reply #18 on:** November 22, 2007, 10:47:47 am »

I would be extremely happy with an automatic installer for the nightly build, which contains everything. Just click and play

.

Some websites have a build with automatic installer, but its ancient. Reason for the automatic installer: Friends around me stopped trying it after failing to install all files correctly, although it is really great. I also agree with the topic starter.

manmach · « **Reply #19 on:** November 22, 2007, 12:15:32 pm »

Quote from: dr snuggles on November 22, 2007, 10:47:47 am

Reason for the automatic installer: Friends around me stopped trying it after failing to install all files correctly, although it is really great. I also agree with the topic starter.

To be honest, people who can't even get all the files installed correctly really have no business using an IDE.

I would add a smiley, except that I'm only half joking.

Auria · « **Reply #20 on:** November 22, 2007, 11:36:10 pm »

I understand the need to get astable SDK, but i think the pages "improvements", "what's new" and "known bugs" need to be updated or removed because their current state is very bad publicity for Code::Blocks. Perhaps also keeping links to nightlies for some popular distros as it's not very nice that newcomers need to search through threads to find nightlies for their platform

JGM · « **Reply #21 on:** November 23, 2007, 05:35:05 am »

Quote from: quBit on November 22, 2007, 01:07:41 am

A forum user posted in this topic's thread that he loves to see frequent updates. Well, nightly builds are not updates as in the accepted meaning of the term 'update' in the software development world. Although they 'update', they are not 'updates'. An update is a patch to a well established set of 100% functional features which changes or adds something. Bugs can always be present or can even be dormant for years, but in a release stage bugs are not assumed !!! In any other case, the project is either in alpha stage, either in beta stage and is preparing for a release after its users' feedback.

Well, then maybe windows xp and vista where still alpha or beta products when first launched on the market (those service packs are really huge) So that makes all windows users like my self beta testers

For me the word "update" on software is relative, since imho, software is always changing (do we really have a final version at all?). It's our point of view if we think the software is done or not. Many commercial companies throw there software as a final release even knowing it has bugs, but thats just marketing$$$, then correct the problems with "updates" (or completely core changes), but hey I'm using codeblocks as my principal tool, marked as final release or not it works 100% for my needs! There are some advanced users willing for more, but I'm happy with it.

At least we have a working IDE, and we can be sure that we will have a great and polished product once the developers think is finished!

JGM · « **Reply #22 on:** November 23, 2007, 05:43:51 am »

Quote from: dr snuggles on November 22, 2007, 10:47:47 am

I would be extremely happy with an automatic installer for the nightly build, which contains everything. Just click and play .

Then maybe an inno setup or nsis script donation would be nice for windows users, and some autopackage to create a single binary distribution for all Linux distros.

Open source also means: feel free to contribute

Hey that sounds great for a signature

Biplab · « **Reply #23 on:** November 23, 2007, 07:56:11 am »

Quote from: Manmohan on November 23, 2007, 07:22:46 am

I Personally Feel that by this installer u will feel that it as the stable version.
Requesting only a response from ur side as a E-mail of Thanx if it is really becomes helpful to u.
Thanks!!!

Dear Manmohan,

Please don't hijack a thread. IMHO, you're doing more to popularize your website than doing something for the community.

Regarding ur site, you still seem to ignore the request made by Thomas to publish the source of the binary that you are distributing. That means you are not complying with GPL.

Also, please refrain from copying the contents of one site to your site to your site without the prior permission from the Copyright holder. A major portion of contents of your Site's download page has been copied from the Download page of Code::Blocks home page. That's a clear violation of Copyright Law. If you don't know what Copyright Law is, Google it.

I would request you to obey the forum rules and avoid cross posting. Otherwise, You may get banned in future.

MortenMacFly · « **Reply #24 on:** November 23, 2007, 08:29:23 am »

Quote from: Manmohan on November 23, 2007, 07:22:46 am

http://www.brahmainformatics.page.tl/

Please, what is so hard to understand?
If you provide binaries to C::B SVN releases revision XXX you have to release the sources to revision XXX, too.
It is not enough to provide sources to an outdated version of C::B. Especially if you link to the sourceforge page which is outdated in addition.

You have to do the following:
- upload the sources you used to compile C::B to your server

Otherwise you are violating copyright law! If you do that you will be banned. It is as simple as that. Time is ticking.

With regards, Morten.

LeRoi · « **Reply #25 on:** November 25, 2007, 06:42:49 pm »

Quote from: MortenMacFly on November 22, 2007, 09:35:24 am

Quote from: LeRoi on November 21, 2007, 05:11:59 pm
* why not to put more effort on the wiki, it's very important for new developpers, and sometimes, it lacks for informations, and the user have to go through the forum ...
You know how a WiKi works, don't you?! I wonder if you have updated the WiKi after you had found "solutions" in the forum. The WiKi is for everyone. So please do and don't just claim others to do.
With regards, Morten.

you are right, I hope I will contribute soon

cacb · « **Reply #26 on:** January 12, 2008, 09:22:21 pm »

Hi and happy new year

This thread started about 2 months ago, and I was wondering if there is any new info on when a stable version of C::B will be made :?:

I do follow the nightly builds more or less and they mostly work fine. But I find it hard to promote this excellent IDE with its great wxSmith etc. when there is no recent stable release available or planned. So I reiterate my wish that a stable release is established sooner rather than later. :idea: I would suggest announcing a date and stick to that.

In any case, applause for a fantastic IDE :wink:

stahta01 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 13, 2008, 01:13:37 am »

I don't think Code::Blocks has near future plans to do a release.
But, could the Code::Blocks Team do an beta addition to make it easier on newbies.

The questions on RC2 are getting very old, I would hope a beta on sf.net would stop them.

Tim S

kesselhaus · « **Reply #28 on:** January 13, 2008, 06:47:20 am »

I also would like to see more stable releases. Updating on every Nightly Build is just no real option.
Also looking through the nightly builds changelogs, I wonder what is all part of the SDK. Somehow I wonder, if this project is really well organized. Regularly, there are plugins listed in the changelogs. Why? Are plugins part of the IDE? Are they part of the SDK?

Why not release the IDE? Users can work with it, get acquainted, maybe you get more feedback then too. I don't think, the users of the IDE would much care about the SDK first. Also, releasing the SDK more often, developers could write plugins with a rather fixed API. If there would be an API break, release another one (but not on as nightly builds). I don't think a plugin developer wants to update its SDK every night.
And for all that guys who run for nightly builds, you can still provide them, but a rather fixed release cycle would be good too.

Maybe you should also take a look on Eclipse CDT, which uses a similar approach.

I also must say, that some statements about being an 'open source project and to help' or 'it just takes 2 minutes to download and install' or 'Windows is alpha/beta', just piss me off and make me try to avoid such projects. This makes me think, these people don't work in real software development area. They have no clue what it takes to:

a) trying to get into a software in order to contribute
b) never released real life software in the industry
c) have no clue on, what is allowed to use in software industry (may it be PC software or maybe something like embedded software used in industry or automotive which must be "safe" to use)
d) some here might not have that superduper 16MBit DSL connection, but only Modem/ISDN/GPRS. Then its not just 2 minutes download. Or if you do not have a flat rate but rather an Volume-rate.

Also, not every software engineer is keen in all areas. E.g. someone working on embedded devices might not have written GUI apps for years. So its hard for them to contribute to something like CodeBlocks. And to call them brain damaged, a dumb ass who does not contribute, can just come out off the mouth of a similar dumb ass.

Still want to express my regards to the developers for the good work done so far.

stahta01 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 13, 2008, 07:11:02 am »

Quote from: kesselhaus on January 13, 2008, 06:47:20 am

d) some here might not have that superduper 16MBit DSL connection, but only Modem/ISDN/GPRS. Then its not just 2 minutes download. Or if you do not have a flat rate but rather an Volume-rate.

I was on a Dial-up connection when I started using Code::Blocks and I was able to get one good binary download out of about 5 trys. I used SVN from the beginning because it worked better over a slow connect then trying to download binary. The first time checkout was hard, but after that the updates was very easy.

Tim S

Leviathan · « **Reply #30 on:** January 19, 2008, 01:06:20 am »

Quote from: Auria on November 22, 2007, 11:36:10 pm

I understand the need to get astable SDK, but i think the pages "improvements", "what's new" and "known bugs" need to be updated or removed because their current state is very bad publicity for Code::Blocks. Perhaps also keeping links to nightlies for some popular distros as it's not very nice that newcomers need to search through threads to find nightlies for their platform

I agree. I believe the way codeblocks is being realesed for the last 2 1/2 years has hurt its image more than the devs realize. I doubt anyone working productively is willing to work with versions of the ide that have been built directly from the repository without testing.
I consider it ridiculous of the codeblocks-devs that they are not confident enough in their own product to release it but to expect people to use it.
If codeblocks is usable and more or less stable then choose a nightly build, call it a beta fix bugs for a few weeks and release it.This way, serious users, plug-in developers and distributions have a version to work with and you can work on codeblocks 2.0. There is a reason why every other software project is organised that way...
v1.0 just has to be stable and have all the features users can expect from a free ide. It does not have to be perfect and incorporate every idea you ever had for an IDE. If you work like that, you will never release because there is always something to improve and you will always get great new ideas while working on your existing plan.
If codeblocks is not usable and more or less stable then why do you continue to release versions of an unusable IDE?

The way it is now, a lot of people who are not willing to work with alpha-software will ignore codeblocks, forget about it and choose an alternative.

Also, someone wrote that the release of codeblocks will be a revolution comparable to that of firefox.
a) firefox took 2 years from the first alpha release to the first final, not 4 and it had quite a few usable beta-releases during the last few month
b) when firefox was released, it was the only modern and free webbrowser for windows and linux (khtml was very new, opera was still commercial, IE was still crap, mozilla was outdated). In contrast, there are plenty of alternatives to codeblocks. Its only selling argument (i can see) is, that it is the only cross-platform ide for c++ besides eclipse/cdt. Few month from now, kdevelop4 will probably run natively on windows (currently only possible with cygwin afaik) making codeblocks #3.

I don't see a revolution coming honestly...

Anyway, sorry for the long rant and have a nice weekend.

quBit · « **Reply #31 on:** January 30, 2009, 01:26:55 pm »

It's been almost 2 years since I've started this thread asking for a stable release...still nightly builds....honestly I don't see a very bright future for Code::Blocks. I highly recommend the developers to make a plan and stick to it if they care at all about their IDE idea. Nightly builds are not the way to create a usable tool and none the last a trusted tool.

Cheers.
quBit.

Jenna · « **Reply #32 on:** January 30, 2009, 02:19:47 pm »

Quote from: quBit on January 30, 2009, 01:26:55 pm

It's been almost 2 years since I've started this thread asking for a stable release...still nightly builds....honestly I don't see a very bright future for Code::Blocks. I highly recommend the developers to make a plan and stick to it if they care at all about their IDE idea. Nightly builds are not the way to create a usable tool and none the last a trusted tool.

Cheers.
quBit.

Not even one year and three months, but that's not the point.

If you would really mean what you say, you should have mentioned, that there was a stable release (8.02) .

You should realize, that all the devs here work on C::B in their spare time and if you really want to speed up developping C::B it would be better to contribute, than just to lament over to long release circles.

That's my point of view and nothing I want to discuss about, so don't estimate an answer to any following posts.

stahta01 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 30, 2009, 04:05:59 pm »

Quote from: quBit on January 30, 2009, 01:26:55 pm

It's been almost 2 years since I've started this thread asking for a stable release...still nightly builds....honestly I don't see a very bright future for Code::Blocks. I highly recommend the developers to make a plan and stick to it if they care at all about their IDE idea. Nightly builds are not the way to create a usable tool and none the last a trusted tool.

Cheers.
quBit.

The CodeBlocks 8.02 was/is a good IDE release, and I think the Nightly are a good thing.

quBit, How about you Quit Bitching and help. Just my Two Bits.
Tim S

PS: Microsoft, is still doing nightly builds, they just do not release them. But, Open Source projects do the reason is to get useful feedback from real users.

JGM · « **Reply #34 on:** February 05, 2009, 02:18:06 am »

Quote from: jens on January 30, 2009, 02:19:47 pm

...
You should realize, that all the devs here work on C::B in their spare time and if you really want to speed up developping C::B it would be better to contribute
...

Yeah everybody who wants to see more stable versions should then pay the developers for all the work they do

. So you who are reading this if you start complaining of codeblocks nightly builds method then start paying the developers what they deserve as a full time job with a better salary than the one they have now

. Else, sit, relax, enjoy and reserve all your commentaries that threat humans as slaves!

Warning
Be careful with all that companies that want to employ programmers for free

Bunch of crows :lol:

Barking_Mad · « **Reply #35 on:** February 06, 2009, 06:38:57 am »

I for one like the frequency of releases, and I have had no issues with the development releases stabillity. As much as I would like to see an up-to-date stable release.

Id like to quote Valves philosophy and guiding statement to Mod developers, I think the philosophy stands with CB:

"Release soon and release often."

I See C::B evolving at a steady pace and am happier to use it than I am VS.

resander · « **Reply #36 on:** February 17, 2009, 02:51:03 pm »

I see absolutely nothing wrong with frequent builds.

Only yesterday, the Ubuntu update function told me there was a new codeblocks build available. I clicked 'give-it-to-me!' and a few minutes later it was on my PC ready to use. Great - could not be better!

Anyone wanting a stable build, should just pick a frequent build and stay with it for as long project overseers wish. You don't have to use the newer builds.

What good is a stable release? I used the stable VC6 for more than 10 years. I like it by the way and still use it on Windows, but it was only updated once as far as I can remember, with a whacking big 60MB patch.

Seronis · « **Reply #37 on:** March 21, 2009, 06:59:47 pm »

I'm more than happy to set up apt-get to grab the nightlies when I boot up into ubuntu but for the sake of convienence if we could get a new 9.04 installer that will pre-bundle a 4.x branch of gcc for windows id be willing to drop 50$ usd on the project donate icon this wednesday when I get paid (or to some other paypal address). Yeah i know its not much but its more an honorary thing considering you would have nearly a month to have the new installer posted after getting paid. It would also get the people repeatedly whining about no releases to shut up for a few months.

BTW i recently upgraded my comps from 8.02 to the newest nightlies last week when i reinstalled a few systems and everything is running superb. Great work.

News:

Author Topic: How about a stable version of CB (Read 24779 times)

dr snuggles

kesselhaus