New stable version?

[happysmileman]

I don't see why there aren't stable versions of C::B available since Oct 22, 2005. There's a nightly build almost every day, why can't you just release one of those, there was supposed to be rc3 released June last year but all the download links on main site still point to rc2.

I personally don't like the idea of having to use a nightly build because I expect it to be full of bugs or errors/memory leaks.

Can someone at least point me to a fairly stable nightly build?

[jimp]

I have been using codeblocks for over a year and would have to agree.  I try every couple of months to find a stable version and haven't had any luck.  It would be great to have a stable release every once and a while even if it doesn't have all the bells and whistles. Personally, I would prefer a new release a couple of times a year instead of unstable nightly builds.

[MortenMacFly]

Can someone at least point me to a fairly stable nightly build?

I am using C::B in "hardcore" daily business under real complicated conditions in Windows and Linux. Since I know about C::B I use nightlies and/or compile them myself. I still can count the number of serious crashes in that time. If I subtract using a C::B build I *knew* it might be unstable it's no more than -say- 10 times or so. A serious crash *including* loss of data I had once only... What do you call "stable"? Try yesterday's nightly or todays. I would call both "stable".
With regards, Morten.

[jimp]

Strange that you recommended today's release 2 hours before it was released.

[Grom]

The stable version is a long story... Seems to be that the C::B team doesn't want to produce a new version. In therms of conspiracy theory that is meaning something. 

[raph]

I just found an article about Code::Blocks 1.0 release in the Software Developer's Journal 07/2005 by accident
Although I prefer nightlies (cause I don't have to wait for new features and bugfixes) I think a "stable" release would greatly push cb's publicity.

[jimp]

It seems that some people have had better experience with the releases than I have. If someone can recommend a release I will try again. I would prefer a release that has been used a few days without a problem. I use both Windows and Linux. A release without problems would make me happy for 6 to 8 months :-)

[Grom]

The last November release for suse 10 was stable enough. It do not report the svn number, but it works since November.

[fmarchal]

I'm now using build 3577 from 20070206 on windows without any major problem (it just mess the watch window when displaying long char buffers but it doesn't prevent me from debugging my project).

But I may be lucky...

[mandrav]

I don't see why there aren't stable versions of C::B available since Oct 22, 2005. There's a nightly build almost every day, why can't you just release one of those, there was supposed to be rc3 released June last year but all the download links on main site still point to rc2.

I 'd really like to know what site did you look at. Because at our site's downloads page there's a huge paragraph at the top of the page describing everything you need to know about the situation...

As for the stability of nightly builds, I can only tell you that I use the HEAD version of Code::Blocks every day at my real job and have no problems with it. Just pick any recent nightly build and you 'll be fine.

[ascxaxsvcbsxbbqvcxqsbcvxs]

I 'd really like to know what site did you look at. Because at our site's downloads page there's a huge paragraph at the top of the page describing everything you need to know about the situation...

In this paragraph, this sentence should be modified:

Since early this year, January the 2nd to be precise, we started publishing what we call "nightly builds".

[MortenMacFly]

Strange that you recommended today's release 2 hours before it was released.

Not strange  - because I know the changes that will be included from the SVN log. ;-)

[Eden]

To be honest I don't think it matters if you have nightly builds or not people will be put off with the fact that you haven't had any major/stable release for over a year. I know of a lot of people who don't use the nightly builds because they either didn't know what they are or weren't sure what to do with them or which ones to use.

A stable release every so often goes a long way to show that your still alive, because lets face it with the exception of the "Latest forum topics" the website looks like its been dead for over a year which technically it has and for your average person if the website looks dead the projects probably dead as well which almost always isnt the case, but were human and that how humans work.

I guess what im saying is by-yearly stableish releases and an up to date active web site will go a long way and that extra little bit of work to do that will be worth it imo.

[jimp]

Thanks to the two people with specific recommendations. I will try one or both of them.

BTW...
A couple of months ago there was a release where the program would close unexpectedly. It was discussed in this forum and several people were having the problem. It lasted for several weeks. Stating that all nightly builds will be error free is being overly optimistic. It is also a denial of the statement by two people in this thread who said they are having problems. You cannot solve someone's problem by explaining it away or denying its existence. Everyone's experience does not mimic your own. Anyway... thanks for the help. I'll be happy if one of the recommended releases work.

[Alturin]

When a program is large enough, even with 'stable' versions, there will always be people where something goes wrong.
In this case (a program in development), I doubt there will ever be a release that is totally bug free, so why not just grab the nightly that was released two weeks ago? Surely by now any critical bugs that could of been in there have been discovered?
I use C::B for all my C/C++ development, and by staying behind about a week on the SVN sources I haven't experienced anything critical at all yet.