On 11 December 2011 10:13, Andrei Alexandrescu < seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
> On 12/11/11 12:55 AM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >> "Andrei >> Alexandrescu"<SeeWebsiteForEma**i...@erdani.org<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org>> >> wrote in message >> news:jc0fnt$13pu$1@**digitalmars.com... >> >>> On 12/10/11 2:14 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> ^^ >>>> I agree. Postponing the current release doesn't really do anything but >>>> frustrate the people that depend on recent changes. Setting a goal for >>>> the next release accomplishes the same goals without the added >>>> frustration. >>>> >>> >> +1 >> >> I do strongly support the new prioritization...but *after* we release >> 2.057. >> The thing's already in the middle of the doorway, there's no point in not >> getting it the rest of the way out the door.. >> > > This is a done deal now. I would like to thank Kenji and Walter for so > quickly and resolutely acting on my suggestions. > > > There are good ways of addressing that. We can delay the release by only a >>> few days and fix long-standing and extremely important issues. This is >>> not >>> only about doing the expected/reasonable thing here, but breaking a >>> pattern and making a statement. >>> >> >> If, as you suggest, there's some big things that can be fixed in a short >> amount of time, then we can just finish 2.057, and have a short and sweet >> dev cycle for 2.058. The only thing "breaking a pattern and making a >> statement" does for anyone is make it look like we've been possessed by >> Steve Jobs's ghost. >> > > More rigor and perfectionism ethic wouldn't hurt us one bit. Bugs, > underdefined and underimplemented features, and an attitude "if it has a > workaround it's less of a bug" are our main liabilities right now. Don't forget incomplete documentation! ;)
