On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 02:19:39PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> The objection for me would be because it makes no difference if you
> change a RC or a release. Features in point releases are usually frowned
> upon as well...
so this is a null arguement. What does the word "release candidate"
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Nejc Skoberne wrote:
> The last feature added - "feature missing for deployment/integration"?
> I don't think so. I am deploying the development version since beta_7 and
> I never *needed* to use any of those new features except Vista compatibility
> feature, which is not
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Felix Kronlage wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:36:56AM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
>
> > This particular change looks a lot like "feature missing for
> > deployment/integration/...".
>
> but why add features in a 'release candidate'? what speaks
> against releasing
Hello,
> If the RC is good enough to have features added, why not get
> it out of the door? For us, we're still stuck with 2.0.9 regarding
> what we can ship to customers, since they will confront us with
> the question "why are you deploying not-released-software" if
> shit hits the fan...
> It
