The way I see things, RunRev is not an overly large company. To remain solvent (something that benefits us all) they probably have to prioritize what they can and cannot do. In House testing of every possible scenario cannot be one of the do’s. Frankly I am thrilled at the progress made since version 2.0. I can live with a few bugs. After all, no one *has* to adopt a new version of LC! If your older version works, use it for production. If the newer version causes you problems, don’t. And file a bug report while you are at it.
Now if RunRev were as large as Microsoft, then I could see holding them accountable for every serious bug in their product. I’m not seeing the major issue here. I think a few more pats on the back of these guys might do more to help them excel then criticisms. After all, they are likely just as much raving egomaniacs (as Richmond put it) as most of us are. :-) Bob S > On Nov 13, 2014, at 14:24 , Alex Tweedly <a...@tweedly.net> wrote: > > > Note to self : > I am *not* getting involved in this thread. > I am *not* getting involved in this thread. > I am *not* getting involved in this thread. > I am *not* getting involved in this thread. > I do *not* have time to read, never mind get involved in, this thread. :-) > > > OK. Having said that to myself - one small suggestion. > > It would seem "touchy-feely" for there to be more response on this list from > RR. > > You (Richard) are doing a great job as Community Manager, and responding here. > How about you get an email address like rich...@runrev.com so that it does > feel more like a RR response :-) > > I suspect this list is mostly us old dinosaurs, and most of the newer users > are on the forums, and *we* should all know who you are - but it would maybe > help remind us that you have a role within RR and are effectively part of the > RR team taking in our input. > > Regards, > -- Alex. > > On 13/11/2014 22:11, Richard Gaskin wrote: >> Richmond wrote: >> >> > What might do some good is point out to RunRev that when they >> > released their Open Source version of LiveCode they undertook >> > to be more "touchy-feely" and more responsive to their users >> > . . . and, just possibly, they may be falling short of this. >> >> Perhaps. What should "touchy-feely" ideally translate to in terms of >> specific actions? >> > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
