Philip Taylor wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Spot on, Chris, and I do my little bit of testing, *as part of the
community* , by running the Beta versions as they are released (still
using 2.21b2, as shown in my sig, below, whilst waiting for the Council
to release 2.22b1).
And yet you, and all the other beta testers, failed to identify this
problem before 2.21 went live. Which indicates not that you, and they,
are not providing a useful service, but instad simply confirms Philip
Chee's statement that there /is/ no formal regression-testing program,
and there never will be, as a result of which each and every new
version of Seamonkey is capable of being fundamentally flawed.
Philip, all I can do is use SM as I need to use it and if I ever find a
problem, I'll let the devs know what I was doing to produce the problem.
Obviously, it seems to me, your uses are more demanding or different to
mine that you are able to produce a problem. Maybe, if you were using
the SM Beta, you would have been able to more effectively contribute to
SM Development, instead of wineing after the final release!
Chris argues : "[regression testing] is rarely conducted by developers
("developers" meaning the people that wrote the code)". In a world
where the sole aim is to produce a new version every $n$ weeks, for
small $n$, regardless of whether or not this new version is (a) wanted
by its potential users, or (b) offers any significant improvements over
the previous version, I have little doubt that the statement is true
(it could hardly be otherwise). But in a world where quality and
stability matter, and where the developer(s) take a pride in his/her
/their work (e.g., TeX), exactly the converse obtains; can you really
imagine Knuth releasing a new version of TeX without first being
99.999999% certain that it is 100%-compatible with the previous
version except in those areas where new and significantly improved
functionality is offered ?
Philip Taylor
What's TeX?? What's Knuth?? And Whoopee for 99.999999%. I'm guessing SM
is similarly 99.999999% functional, with only the 0.000001% of SM users
showing up here to bitch about this free product!
--
Daniel
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:21.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/21.0 SeaMonkey/2.18 Build identifier: 20130418192405
or
User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101
Firefox/24.0 SeaMonkey/2.21 Build identifier: 20130827183508
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
