> There hasn't been anything really "must have" for ages now.
> Sure - its great and proper for RS to really crack down on all those bugs,
> but for those out there happy to stay on earlier and safer releases it
will
> really require something significant for me to justify jumping and endure
> all the flakiness of the new release.
This statement is so full of contradictions, and yet, so sadly accurate.
If RS really was cracking down on bugs, then how can older versions be
safer and newer versions be flaky? The problem is, that for every bug they
fix, they introduce a new bug somewhere else. So people stay with the devil
they know instead of upgrading to a new, equally buggy, devil. If RS
actually did release a version that was vastly less buggy, then I, and I'm
sure many others, would consider that a significant reason to upgrade.
A solid, bug fix only release is about as "must have" as it can get. And
those bugs include fixing the recently "deemphasized" features too. That
way we have a solid release to keep projects on that require the
deemphasized features, while we decide whether to move the project to
different tools or sunset the projects. Plus, what better place to start
adding new "must have" features, than on a solid foundation? As it stands
now, any new features would simply be built on the same flaky base that we
have now. And what would be the point of upgrading to that?
--Seth
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|