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!
