🚀 go-pugleaf

songer@lexmark.com (Christopher Songer) writes:

>nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu writes:
>>
>>Given the choice, I would have had NeXT make separate
>>(later) releases of the new packages (dbkit, 3D stuff,
>>etc) and just work on getting the stable base release out
>>on time. 

The problem with releasing packages individually is that you have to make
sure each released package is compatible with both the previous and the new
releases of other packages.  That may actually be more work than making one
giant release.  In the case of 3.0, because there are so many completely
new packages, this strategy may have worked.  But it's all moot now.

>I'd have to agree with this. My current assumption is that 3.0 is likely
>to be pretty unstable -- I think I'm going to wait for 3.1. If this does
>in fact come to pass (I'd like to be wrong) then Next seems to be making 
>a habit of this. (I'm sure everyone recalls how stable 2.0 was :) Next
>has great software, but the base has to be stable for it to be usable.

I have to say that 3.0PR2 is one of the most stable beta software release
that I have ever come across (and I've seen lots).  There *are* bugs, but
they are so minor (for my purposes) that I can use it on my production
machine everyday (which I do).  I expect 3.0 to be shipping soon and very
solid the first time 'round.

Conrad