Re: User feedback requested (esp. RISC OS)
On Wed, 2012-10-03 at 07:57 +0100, David J. Ruck wrote: > On 02/10/2012 18:49, Vincent Sanders wrote: > > * The Continuous Integration (CI) builds are produced for the > > NetSurf Developers. > > In which case to avoid the confusion which has enviably arisen, please > can information and discussion on the CI builds be posted to > netsurf-developers mailing list, and netsurf-users be kept for > discussion of release and beta builds. Sorry, no. Users have been perfectly able and welcome to report issues with development builds on this list since it was created. We're not about to change that now. J.
Re: User feedback requested (esp. RISC OS)
In message <506be1e3.1010...@druck.org.uk> "David J. Ruck" wrote: > On 02/10/2012 18:49, Vincent Sanders wrote: >> * The Continuous Integration (CI) builds are produced for the >> NetSurf Developers. > In which case to avoid the confusion which has enviably arisen, please > can information and discussion on the CI builds be posted to > netsurf-developers mailing list, and netsurf-users be kept for > discussion of release and beta builds. > With all due respect, there are a large number of users on netsurf-users > who will not be able to produce bug reports of sufficient detail from > the CI build to be useful to developers, and are best sticking to the > beta builds to avoid undue distribution to both themselves and developers. Could not put it better David for many of us it is wait for the next, for the beta builds, Thanks, Alan > This list can then get back to its original mandate of feedback on the > browser from a user perspective, without being swamped by crash reports > and questions on how to build things. > Cheers --
Re: User feedback requested (esp. RISC OS)
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 08:04:29AM +0100, Alan Leighton wrote: > Could not put it better David for many of us it is wait for the next, > for the beta builds, Thanks, Alan What beta builds? Do you mean the old test builds? These are essentially the same, except using off-the-shelf better infrastructure rather than something we rolled ourselves. (In part needed because of our move from Subversion to git.) B.
Re: User feedback requested (esp. RISC OS)
In message Alan Leighton wrote: > In message <506be1e3.1010...@druck.org.uk> > "David J. Ruck" wrote: > >> On 02/10/2012 18:49, Vincent Sanders wrote: >>> * The Continuous Integration (CI) builds are produced for the >>> NetSurf Developers. > >> In which case to avoid the confusion which has enviably arisen, please >> can information and discussion on the CI builds be posted to >> netsurf-developers mailing list, and netsurf-users be kept for >> discussion of release and beta builds. > >> With all due respect, there are a large number of users on netsurf-users >> who will not be able to produce bug reports of sufficient detail from >> the CI build to be useful to developers, and are best sticking to the >> beta builds to avoid undue distribution to both themselves and developers. > > Could not put it better David for many of us it is wait for the next, > for the beta builds, Thanks, Alan > [snip] If you want stability, use 2.9. If you want to help development of 3.0 and can tolerate the occasional crash/freeze*, use the latest builds. Simples. George (*as it clearly states on the Netsurf site, use of the development builds is at the user's risk. As for quality of bug reports, it is alwasy open to the developers to ask for more/better info on any particular report. FWIW, I have found the 28-9_19-54-37 build to be both much faster and stable on my RPCEmu 0.8.9/4.02 Win7 installation) -- george greenfield
Re: User feedback requested
The following bytes were arranged on 2 Oct 2012 by Michael Drake : > In article <52d877edfdcvj...@waitrose.com>, >Chris Newman wrote: > > > In the info window obtained from the iconbar icon, "Version" just gives > > 3.0 (development). Is there a way of checking which version/build you > > are using except noting at the time of downloading? > > There is just the name of the zip file you downloaded to identify it at > the moment. > > This is just one reason we aren't yet ready to announce development builds > being available for general testing use; there's currently no good way to > identify them. > > We need to come up with a new identification scheme, since Subversion > revision numbers are no longer available. May I suggest using whatever it is you currently name the zip files with? I mean, you could use the git commit ID, but five-figure SVN revisions were hard enough to keep track of. -- __<^>__ / _ _ \ I don't have a problem with God; it's his fan club I can't stand. ( ( |_| ) ) \_> <_/ === Martin Bazley ==
Re: User feedback requested (esp. RISC OS)
The following bytes were arranged on 29 Sep 2012 by Martin Bazley : > http://www.andyfanton.com > > "Serious error". Every time, without fail. With the 2012-10-02_20-23-02 archive, this site has stopped crashing (again). I haven't had a lockup yet, and I'm hopeful from other people's reports that I won't. Good work! Now, how's that Javascript coming along...? ;-) -- __<^>__ / _ _ \ It is written that Geeks shall inherit the Earth. ( ( |_| ) ) \_> <_/ === Martin Bazley ==
