I've never seen it enforced or even seen wrists slapped privately, but if
you want to stick rigidly to something you signed then yes, it's supposed
to be a blanket coverage AFAIK. At the very least discussion about it
should be reserved entirely to dedicated areas that they have control over.

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Mario Reitbauer <cont...@marioreitbauer.at>
wrote:

> *even just involvement.*
>
> Really ? Alright good to know.
>
> 2015-02-07 15:49 GMT+01:00 Raffaele Fragapane <raffsxsil...@googlemail.com
> >:
>
>> Unless the beta breaks binary compatibility in the cycle, which is rare,
>> usually not, not across PRs at least. They only need recompiling across
>> major versions and, rarely, with some 0.5s (last time was 2013.5).
>>
>> You should post beta related questions in the beta forums though, you're
>> not supposed to be discussing details of it publicly, even just involvement.
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Eric Thivierge <ethivie...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Most likely.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> Eric Thivierge
>>> http://www.ethivierge.com
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Mario Reitbauer <
>>> cont...@marioreitbauer.at> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cause I am in the beta but I almost never use it (for a simple reason)
>>>> I thought I ask here.
>>>>
>>>> Would plugins actually need to be compiled against every single beta
>>>> release ?
>>>> I just can't see me using maya out of the box.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it
>> and let them flee like the dogs they are!
>>
>
>


-- 
Our users will know fear and cower before our software! Ship it! Ship it
and let them flee like the dogs they are!

Reply via email to