LightBeam wrote:
> I think that if you make the beta(s) "expire-able" be sure that the
> expiration date is longer enough to avoid this kind of stupid problem... so,
> if the delay is over, nobody can de-bug it !

First of all, I'd guess that the original plan was to make a new beta 
available when the previous expires. Now something has delayed it and 
that's it - not a big deal. There would be no point in making a second 
beta 2 with longer expiration period. I'm not even sure anyone has the 
beta 2 sources anymore :) Second, I think the nothing permits limited 
time beta testing periods. If they decided that they want the beta 
testing of beta 2 to end before the next beta version, so be it. Maybe 
pov-team doesn't want new bug reports before making beta 3 available. 
There are probably many more valid reasons for that.

> I know, I'm stupid too, but I'm just a pov-user not a
> "Me-the-God-genious-pov-teamer" sorry...

Would you like to be a 
"You-the-God-genious-pov-user-understanding-beta-testing-restrictions"? 
It actually is not that difficult :)

Severi "Pov-God" Salminen

Post a reply to this message

406c0342@news.povray.org...
>   If you are beta-testing a program you can't expect it to be perfect.
> Not even in its expiration date and its updates.

I never expected that thing ! Just trying "a beta version" to see if I can
make the same thing that povray 3.5 does without bugs or problems... To help
the pov team if I can.

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:406b21f7$1@news.povray.org...
>
> > Alternatively perhaps even the same beta 2 could be
> > available with only the expiration date changed.
>
> Well, that would actually require more work than preparing a beta 3!
>

Really? I'm surprised.

Isn't it just a case of recompiling with one change (the expiration date).

A new beta (3) would seem to require that as well, plus any appropriate
bug-fixes (which sounds like more work ;).

Curious and confused....

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> Isn't it just a case of recompiling with one change (the expiration date).

  It's not always that simple. There may be unfinished work on progress
which still has serious flaws and need fixing before the program can
work. It may be more laborious to "undo" all the changes already made
than to just finish them.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:406c2f13@news.povray.org...
> Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> > Isn't it just a case of recompiling with one change (the expiration date).
>
>   It's not always that simple. There may be unfinished work on progress
> which still has serious flaws and need fixing before the program can
> work. It may be more laborious to "undo" all the changes already made
> than to just finish them.

Ah - reading between the lines here, I take it that no pure source still exists
for beta 2? That seems, well, odd, but at least explains things.

Post a reply to this message

war### [at] tagpovrayorg news:406c02d4@news.povray.org

>   However, this isn't true. There's no official POV-Ray 3.6 release.
> 

You realy think that I do not understand what beta version is?

I only dont understand why such greate program must also follow philosofy 
of "greate" programming companys (like micro$oft) - that the program knows 
better then user what is good for him, and all users are stupid and 
shouldnt be allowed to do some thing just because program knows better.

ofcourse I just change date for a second and this is not a problem 
especialy while Pov checks date only at startup and I restar my computer 
about once in a month, so - I'm not complaining, I'm only reporting that 
this behaviour of program is irritating probably for some users, not only 
me. 

Chances that one could not install old 3.5 and needs to use installed pov 
(3.6) *right now* are small, but are notacible.

This is *just* a sugestion ofcourse authors will do what they think is 
best, I only can say that personaly I would add instead dialog box:

WARNING - read carfule!
This is a *beta* (test) version of program.
Please do NOT use it anymore and check www.povray.ord/download/ for final 
version instead.
If You rely need this beta, unstable test-version, they You may use it by 
writting "forcebeta" in this dialog box, or by adding it as commandline 
paramater.
Please remember that this version have BUGS that You can NOT REPORT 
anymore, since this beta version is OUT OF DATE now.

[                   ]

[Get new version NOW]  [Quit]  [Use unstable BETA]



-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

sev### [at] NOT_THISsibafi news:406b106a$1@news.povray.org

> It is also quite stupid to ask the same question again...

Ok, I will not report other things that I find irritating, neither I would 
report any requests, wishes, bugreports, etc, if it just leed to such rude 
answares.

-- 
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> Ah - reading between the lines here, I take it that no pure source still exists
> for beta 2? That seems, well, odd, but at least explains things.

  What do you mean "pure source"?
  The sources are updated to a centralized versioning system. I don't know
what are the exact policies in submitting changes to the sources to the
versioning system (because I'm not participating directly in that), but
it wouldn't be impossible that not-yet-complete code is checked in (if
nothing else, as a "backup").

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote in message
news:Xns94BEB986958D3raf256com@203.29.75.35...
> war### [at] tagpovrayorg news:406c02d4@news.povray.org
>

Raf, the reason has been explained several times, and as you know you can still
use an expired beta by setting your system time appropriately. I really don't
understand why you can't let this one go.

Taking the suggestion you made, you basically want extra code in the beta, which
sounds like a bad idea. Besides that:

>Chances that one could not install old 3.5 and needs to use installed pov
>(3.6) *right now* are small, but are notacible.

I'm afraid, afaik, this shows a basic ignorance of the role of betas (and
beta-testers). And (once more with feeling) YOU CAN STILL USE THE BETA IF YOU
ADJUST YOUR SYSTEM CLOCK!!!!!!!

BTW I'm a tolerant guy (imho), and you're starting to p*** me off, so god help
Thorsten.... ;)

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:406c4225@news.povray.org...
> Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> > Ah - reading between the lines here, I take it that no pure source still
exists
> > for beta 2? That seems, well, odd, but at least explains things.
>
>   What do you mean "pure source"?

I mean the source (all req. files) that was compiled to beta 2. You seem to
imply that re-compiling beta 2 (with a new expiry date) is not possible, since
the source files required for that no longer exist in the same state. Or have I
misunderstood?

Post a reply to this message