"George Pantazopoulos" <the### [at] attbicom> wrote in message
news:3cccdd60$1@news.povray.org...
> Youre a funny guy Chris ;-) Seriously though, I think it would be a good
> idea to be able to bypass the beta expiration window, after the user has
> been warned.

These betas aren't supposed to even exist after expiring though. What other
solution is there? By putting a message saying turn your PC's clock back?
Seems a bit ridiculous, especially since the arguable point here is that
this is only a beta. There shouldn't be any serious activity considered with
a beta program other than testing. I'm probably echoing that sentiment and
all this has probably been said before.

bob h

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:26:32 -0500, "bob h" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> There shouldn't be any serious activity considered with
> a beta program other than testing.

I agree with You however not everyone has resources for just testing when
crash appear in the middle of one day long render (developing short example
script could take months). It is good to test 3.5 with "real" productions.
Just user should be prepared and have alternate solution in case beta expire
or crash. Betatesting is not for dummies ;-)

ABX

Post a reply to this message

"Vic" <let### [at] fwhu> wrote in message news:3cccd9ef@news.povray.org...
> As I think expiration is a good idea at beta and RC versions, but:
>
> - expiration time should be at least two or three weeks, not one
> - expriration window should be passed by an Ok button, then
>     expired Pov should be used normally for some extended period
>
> I've the same headache, because I've to finish my theses in three weeks and
> I'm forced to download a 9M install each week.
> No comment.
>

You could just d/l the VC++ compile - much smaller (.exe only, so don't delete
your old installation).

Post a reply to this message

"bob h" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote in message
news:3ccce7a8@news.povray.org...
> "George Pantazopoulos" <the### [at] attbicom> wrote in message

> There shouldn't be any serious activity considered with
> a beta program other than testing.

Define "serious", define "shouldn't" ;)

Post a reply to this message

> You could just d/l the VC++ compile - much smaller (.exe only, so don't
delete
> your old installation).

Thanks, it can help a lot. - Vic

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in news:3cccc4b2
@news.povray.org:

> Sorry, we have a hitch and won't be releasing RC3 for at least another 8
> hours. Please just set your clock back, re-start POV, then set it forward
> again.

Have you people given any thought to setting the drop-dead date to a few 
days *after* the planned next release date rather than right on the day?  
It'd give you a bigger window to fix last-minute gotchas without 1) pissing 
off the user base, and 2) getting p.b-t flooded with messages every time a 
beta dies early.

Post a reply to this message

> Have you people given any thought to setting the drop-dead date to a few
> days *after* the planned next release date rather than right on the day?
> It'd give you a bigger window to fix last-minute gotchas without 1)
pissing
> off the user base, and 2) getting p.b-t flooded with messages every time a
> beta dies early.

I suppose it should be reiterated that this is beta testing.  Any work done
in 3.5 that does not relate directly to beta testing is done so at the users
own risk.  Even though it is great to use the new program we should not be
treating as the final release until such time that it is. Just because it is
publicly available doesn't change the fact that it is still beta.

-tgq

Post a reply to this message

"TinCanMan" <Tin### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in
news:3ccd9b01$1@news.povray.org: 

> I suppose it should be reiterated that this is beta testing.

Needlessly make the beta too unreliable or too annoying to use and people 
will get fed up and quit testing it.

Would that be a good thing?

Post a reply to this message

in news:Xns### [at] 204213191226 Coridon Henshaw wrote:

>> I suppose it should be reiterated that this is beta testing.
> 
> Needlessly make the beta too unreliable or too annoying to use and
> people will get fed up and quit testing it.
> 
> Would that be a good thing?
> 

YES, it would stop all these pathetic whiners stop whining, I hope....
Sorry but all this nonsense postings about a beta being somewhat late 
realy pisses me off.
I've ran at least 15 (pre)-beta's and _none_ of them was "too" late. IMO 
this is a great achievement of The Team. I know, as a doc maintainer 
I've been too late with my submissions on several occasions, or 
completely missed deadlines, but the (pre)beta was there with all kinds 
of bugs fixed!
One would realy expect that raytracing would have learned people some 
patience, but it seems to be the opposite.

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote in news:Xns### [at] povrayorg:

> in news:Xns### [at] 204213191226 Coridon Henshaw wrote:

>> Needlessly make the beta too unreliable or too annoying to use and
>> people will get fed up and quit testing it.
 
>> Would that be a good thing?
 
> YES, it would stop all these pathetic whiners stop whining, I hope....

Then why bother with a public beta at all?  Keep the entire project private 
and you won't have any 'pathetic whiners' (aka: users) to get under your 
feet.

> One would realy expect that raytracing would have learned people some 
> patience, but it seems to be the opposite.

There is a difference between having to wait for a render that's slow 
because its complicated and having to leap through hoops because of some 
drop dead logic that's needlessly annoying and needlessly agressive given 
the simple fact that volunteers can't reasonably be expected to follow 
strict release timetables.

The problem is not that RC3 is late but rather that RC2 has no built in 
safety margin to cope with a late replacement.

Post a reply to this message