On 4/5/10, Kreuvf wrote:
> Guangcong Luo wrote:
> > I don't think any other software company has done that, ever, which
> > should be the first clue that perhaps it's a bad idea.
>
> We are not a software company. And we do not produce commercial games, so
> please
> don't compare us with the
On Monday, 5 April 2010 at 2:44, Guangcong Luo wrote:
> Is there anything wrong with continuing to support 2.2.4 nominally,
> like we do now? It's really a rather minimal amount of extra work; I
> mean, when's the last time we've gotten a 2.2.4 bug report?
Five days ago: http://developer.wz2100.
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Kreuvf wrote:
> Support in the sense of "helping when there are problems with the latest
> stable"
> is mainly done in the forums, I cannot say anything about it, but based on my
> experiences elsewhere I think that most support is user-to-user support, isn't
> it?
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:26 PM, buginator wrote:
> Hey all, just wanted to update a few things about the project.
>
> First off, 2.2.4 should be dead. Really.
> It serves no useful purpose for us at all.
I am a bit uncomfortable with that. I do not think we want linux
distros etc to use a random
Guangcong Luo wrote:
> Well, I think the problem is that the term "supported" is not well
> defined. I couldn't find a definition on Stack Overflow, Wikipedia, or
> Wiktionary.
The one I had in mind is: We will try to fix bugs you report and come up with a
new version after some time.
Support in t
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Kreuvf wrote:
> We are not a software company. And we do not produce commercial games, so
> please
> don't compare us with them all the time.
Okay, "software company" was the wrong word. I meant out of any
software project, commercial or free, proprietary or open
Guangcong Luo wrote:
> I don't think any other software company has done that, ever, which
> should be the first clue that perhaps it's a bad idea.
We are not a software company. And we do not produce commercial games, so please
don't compare us with them all the time.
> Is there anything wrong w
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:26 PM, buginator wrote:
> First off, 2.2.4 should be dead. Really.
> It serves no useful purpose for us at all.
> The codebase has changed too much, so any bug reports we get on this
> version is pretty much meaningless in the vast majority of the cases.
> We should upda
Hey all, just wanted to update a few things about the project.
First off, 2.2.4 should be dead. Really.
It serves no useful purpose for us at all.
The codebase has changed too much, so any bug reports we get on this
version is pretty much meaningless in the vast majority of the cases.
We should u
