User forums > Announcements
When is the next version coming out?
thomas:
There's a few things that I'd like to comment on here:
--- Quote ---You are doing everything wrong. Code::Blocks sucks. I'm not going to tell you what is wrong, you have to know. I'll tell you after the release. (paraphrased)
--- End quote ---
Right. That's not going to get you a release any faster, nor a product that's more according to your wishes. If you have something that doesn't work, it's time to tell before a release comes out, not after. Unless of course you only complain because you like complaining.
--- Quote ---SourceForge is modifying offical installers from popular projects. They're adding adware to it against the will of the project owners
--- End quote ---
That is an outright lie. You should be really careful about what you are saying because it can have much more drastic consequences for your person than you are probably aware of.
Sourceforge did (and does) add adware to installers, but only after the project owners (who get revenue for doing so) have opted in.
Our project has been popular for a long time. It is currently ranked #16 in development and has been in the top 10 for several years (was ranked #2 after last release, it also has been featured as project of the week and whatever it's called, too). At no point in time did Sourceforge secretly or against our will (or at all!) add adware to any of our executables/installers. No adware is currently contained in our installers, and we are not making any money from such a channel (Yiannis does receive one or the other donation on occasions, but on the yearly average, it's less than what renting the server for the website and the forum costs).
Sourceforge indeed does display a considerable amount of ads on their website. Guess what, a lot of websites do that, it's what they live from.
--- Quote ---"Github is so much better than Sourceforge. Git rules and SVN is for losers." (paraphrased)
--- End quote ---
Yeah, OK. You can choose whichever revision control system and provider you want, the difference is not big. Unlike common folklore, Git has no significant advantages over SVN, unless you work on something the size of the Linux kernel and want a similar workflow like on the Linux kernel (including sending tar files via email, which according to Torvalds is vastly superior to using Subversion). For a project the size of Code::Blocks and a team the size of our team, Subversion works very well.
Please feel free to use what you like, but stop trying to press us into using something different simply because you like it better for some ideologic reason.
In particular, this:
--- Quote ---switching to GitHub reduces the barrier for contributing
--- End quote ---
is not true. Checking out takes typing 6 characters plus the repository's name, or two clicks with the mouse (depending on what you use). Making a patch, which is factually the equivalent to "committing a branch" takes the same amount of work. Yes, your patch will not be merged to master (or trunk, or whatever you call it). But that won't happen without someone reviewing it anyway, not with Git either.
--- Quote ---However, I'm afraid that I can't commit and merge any modification in local repository when I use subversion as a non-privilige user.
--- End quote ---
That is true, but it is also something that is explicitly not wanted. It's why there is an authorative server with access control lists in the first place. While having two thousand people clone repositories and commit 25 branches per day as they like sounds like an awesome idea, it is not nearly as awesome unless you have a team of two dozen people dedicated to reviewing these. We don't have that.
The need of producing a clean, working patch which only ever gets committed after applying cleanly without conflicts and being reviewed and tested is something that works well for us (even so, it is often more than what we can cope with time-wise).
raynebc:
I'll just come into the discussion to agree that nightly builds are super easy and convenient to use. For the program I work on, I use a similar/simpler strategy (only the modified executable/resource files) because it allows me to quickly add fixes and new features without the hassle of creating a full package. My users don't care how often a formal version release is made and it really is not important compared to the stability of the current build. I ignore users that whine about something and refuse to give any helpful information or valid reasons for complaints, as they are not helpful. Codeblocks is pretty stable, I rarely see it crash or lock up.
Krice:
--- Quote from: thomas on November 05, 2015, 08:45:20 pm ---Right. That's not going to get you a release any faster, nor a product that's more according to your wishes. If you have something that doesn't work, it's time to tell before a release comes out, not after.
--- End quote ---
Please quote the actual message. But assuming you were talking about my message then this is what I'm going to say: don't try to turn this on me. YOU are the developers, not me. I have no obligation to try out unfinished software, as if it would make any difference on when the next version is released. Usually any normal software has an official release, which (the content and quality of the software) should be known for the developers. I mean what kind of developers are waiting for users to find bugs and even write patches? Why do you even call yourself developers?
Jenna:
--- Quote from: Krice on November 05, 2015, 10:50:21 pm ---
--- Quote from: thomas on November 05, 2015, 08:45:20 pm ---Right. That's not going to get you a release any faster, nor a product that's more according to your wishes. If you have something that doesn't work, it's time to tell before a release comes out, not after.
--- End quote ---
Please quote the actual message. But assuming you were talking about my message then this is what I'm going to say: don't try to turn this on me. YOU are the developers, not me. I have no obligation to try out unfinished software, as if it would make any difference on when the next version is released. Usually any normal software has an official release, which (the content and quality of the software) should be known for the developers. I mean what kind of developers are waiting for users to find bugs and even write patches? Why do you even call yourself developers?
--- End quote ---
Did you her of free and open source software ?
Do you know what it means to develop software in your spare time, besides your family, your friends, your job etc.
It seems, that you do not know much about software developping at all.
Even if you have a big team, you will never be able to find all bugs, so you need alpha, beta, etc testers or you will never be able to get stable software.
Nightly builds are a real good way to have many testers and to react (as) fast (as possible), if somebody finds a bug.
Krice:
--- Quote from: jens on November 05, 2015, 11:09:51 pm ---Do you know what it means to develop software in your spare time, besides your family, your friends, your job etc.
--- End quote ---
Yes I know. It's lot easier than professional development, because you don't have a deadline or any responsibility to your company or users for success. You can do anything you want and take all the time you need for that, and no one can say anything about it.
--- Quote ---Even if you have a big team, you will never be able to find all bugs, so you need alpha, beta, etc testers
--- End quote ---
Of course you can find if not all then most bugs. No beta testers needed for that, because obviously you can test everything by yourself and not only that, developers are in better position to do that since they should know how the program works, what features are new etc.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version