User forums > Nightly builds

The 23 february 2006 build is out.

<< < (6/7) > >>

Zingam:
What does a "closed" bug fixed :) And do you sometimes close bugs when they are not fixed?

Zingam:

--- Quote from: royalbox on February 25, 2006, 12:46:09 am ---
--- Quote ---maybe people should read.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---No kidding.

I was being facetious and more than a little sarcastic.
--- End quote ---

Gosh, the dodgy code completition is a real sore point for you chaps isn't it.

--- End quote ---

Code completion is cool but I belive it should be added in version: 1.5 when all other more important things are done and when the whole IDE works properly as expected, even if some modern fancy features like code completion are missing.

I belive that CB shouldn't strive to become equal to VS with the first version but it should do all editing, project management, compiler support, GUI and all other basic features properly before starting to add more and more advanced features.

I have Visual Studio but for C++ programs I prefer Code::Blocks because it is small, it is fast and it runs under Linux too! If I want code completion so much I could use the monstrous VS and I hope CB never becomes as heavy weight as VS.
(It seems to me that MS always try to make the computers run as fast as at the time when they started on the original IBM PC - only their UI is prettier).

royalbox:
The code::blocks versioning seems strange to me. I can't understand why it is called a 'release candidate' when it is still having new features added, bugs fixed and layout changed daily, and when one of it's features (code completion) is not anywhere near ready for release. I don't understand why they didn't stick to calling it a beta version until they had a version that they considered ready for release. Or, am I mistaken and the nightly builds are for the next version -- 1.1 or something? I can't see that as RC2 is miles behind the nightly builds. I don't understand the rush to get to 'version 1'. Other apps stay in beta for years until they're considered ready. What's wrong with that?

Zingam:
:) Does it actually matter at all?

thomas:

--- Quote from: Zingam on February 25, 2006, 06:19:05 am ---What does a "closed" bug fixed :) And do you sometimes close bugs when they are not fixed?
--- End quote ---
Yes, this happens, for example under the following conditions:
1. None of the devs is able to reproduce the bug throughout several releases. A few releases later, an inquiry whether the problem persists is made and there is no answer (or a negative answer).
2. The report misses significant detail and the developer examining the bug cannot reproduce it. An inquiry for more detail is made, but there is no answer.
3. The program behaves correctly, but the user does something wrong. The user is informed about this, and the report is eventually closed.
4. The user was correct, but the bug report was not processed for some reason, and in the meantime it has become obsolete because the bug was fixed by random chance (some other change). A note is made and the report is closed.
5. The user is being outright ignorant or stupid (or both). The bug it is not a bug at all, possibly the bug report is not even a bug report. The user is given a more or less polite answer (if it's me, then it may be less polite) and the report is closed.


--- Quote from: royalbox on February 25, 2006, 01:58:05 pm ---The code::blocks versioning seems strange to me.

--- End quote ---
Yes, this has been discussed a couple of times in the past.
The problem with versioning is that we released the first RC too early. It only became clear after this that a few things would have to be greatly overhauled before you could call the IDE "usable".
However, once you go to RC, you cannot go back. If we started calling Code::Blocks "beta" again, it would lead to a lot more confusion (pre-RC beta vs. post-RC beta, old RC and new RC). Thus, we left it at that. It is not good, but it is the best we can do now.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page