Richard Gaskin wrote:
Mark Schonewille wrote:
Who says that tousand people experience great performance?! I, for
one, don't.
I haven't seen your RQCC report on this. What's the #?
After reading the messages here, in the forum, and other venues, yours
and Inselfan's posts are the first I've come across during the long
preview cycle which report that there's something wrong with v4's
performance.
Now that we have a second data point reflecting similar results we can
modify the analysis of the problem, but the basic principle remains
the same: identify the differences between the working and
non-working states.
I am pretty sure that Inselfan did something that should just work
in Revolution without problems and figuring out the source of the
problem is a process that one should not have to go through with a
development environment like Revolution in the first place!
I wholeheartedly agree,
There is a school of thought that RunRev have tried to expand the
capabilities of Revolution rather too
rapidly, without taking care of some 'nuts-and-bolts' glitches that have
been around for some time.
There is a risk, as one runs for the finish line, with one's eye on the
prize, that one doesn't see the
banana skin on the track.
and share the desire for an ideal world in which everything always
works perfectly.
But in our imperfect world all processes have a failure rate, and the
software development process is no exception.
If the good folks at RunRev are aware of this issue I doubt they
consider it acceptable, and are likely working on it I write this.
But if they're not yet aware of it they may require some assistance to
be able to replicate it. That's where we come in: when we see a
problem, we try arrive at a recipe for reproducing it and report it to
the RQCC.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
