The title explains things well enough.

I am just wondering about one thing at the moment, and that is *which
time zone* is the POV expiration targetd for, and what time of day or
night in that time zone? I had assumed that POV would base expiration
time upon the local time of my computer, but perhaps not. At any rate,
the replacement version of POV isn't on the web site at the moment,
and I'm eager to finish something that I had started earlier today,
back when my copy of POV 3.5 still worked.

later,
Glen

Post a reply to this message

> I am just wondering about one thing at the moment, and that is *which
> time zone* is the POV expiration targetd for, and what time of day or
> night in that time zone? I had assumed that POV would base expiration
> time upon the local time of my computer, but perhaps not. At any rate,
> the replacement version of POV isn't on the web site at the moment,
> and I'm eager to finish something that I had started earlier today,
> back when my copy of POV 3.5 still worked.

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.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:58:41 +1000, "Chris Cason"
<new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:

>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.
>
>-- Chris

Thanks for the suggestion, Chris. I wish you the best of luck in
resolving whatever "hitch" you might have ran into.

Post a reply to this message

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.

- Vic -

Post a reply to this message

"Vic" <let### [at] fwhu> wrote in message news:3cccd9ef@news.povray.org...

> I'm forced to download a 9M install each week.

Who is forcing you to do this ? Does he/she have a large stick or similar
physical inducement ?

Whoever they are, I'd like to have a strong talk with them. No-one should
be allowed to force you to download beta-quality software that you don't
want.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

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.

George



> - expriration window should be passed by an Ok button, then
    expired Pov should be used normally for some extended period

"Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3cccdb60@news.povray.org...
> "Vic" <let### [at] fwhu> wrote in message news:3cccd9ef@news.povray.org...
>
> > I'm forced to download a 9M install each week.
>
> Who is forcing you to do this ? Does he/she have a large stick or similar
> physical inducement ?
>
> Whoever they are, I'd like to have a strong talk with them. No-one should
> be allowed to force you to download beta-quality software that you don't
> want.
>
> -- Chris
>
>
>

Post a reply to this message

"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

On 29 Apr 2002 17:57:42 -0400, ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:

>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.

>Ingo

So you are fighting your perceived "whiners" by doing some whining
yourself? I'm sure that will help everyone a lot.

As for my post being "nonsense", it was perfectly coherent and
intelligible. 

There was no whining in my post whatsoever, only a simple question.
Chris was quick to respond, and did so with a very helpful attitude. I
then thanked him for the help, and wished him good luck with the beta
process. There was no whining in that exchange whatsoever.

Perhaps language isn't your natural mode of communication? Would
3D-rendered hand gestures be more informative for you? One in
particular comes to mind for this occasion...

I *do not* appreciate being called "pathetic", especially when my post
only asked for simple information as to the exact nature of the POV
beta expiration. I thought if I knew exactly when the betas would
expire, it would be less likely to take me by surprise in fhe future. 

If that pisses you off, then so be it. I'm not responsible if you
can't mainatin control over your bodily finctions.

Later,
Glen

Post a reply to this message

Glen Berry wrote:
> 
> So you are fighting your perceived "whiners" by doing some whining
> yourself? I'm sure that will help everyone a lot.
> 
> As for my post being "nonsense", it was perfectly coherent and
> intelligible.
> 
> [...]

I think we probably should calm down a bit.  Ingo probably did not adress
you in particular with his post but the continuing whining about the beta
expiry after your question was answered.  

And BTW RC3 is available now.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 26 Apr. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:58:41 +1000, "Chris Cason"
<new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote:
> Sorry, we have a hitch and won't be releasing RC3 for at least another 8
> hours.

Any chance to share knowladge what happened ? If it is something around
metodology of development it could increase experience of other teams.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

in news:3CCE3434.875CB2A0@gmx.de Christoph Hormann wrote:

> Ingo probably did not adress
> you in particular with his post but the continuing whining about the
> beta expiry after your question was answered.  

That's exactly what it was about.
 
> And BTW RC3 is available now.

Now let's have some fun again,

Ingo

Post a reply to this message

"W³odzimierz ABX Skiba" <abx### [at] babilonorg> wrote in message
news:ogdscu89hrficpjq7bema2nu0gboog203p@4ax.com...
>
> Any chance to share knowladge what happened ? If it is something around
> metodology of development it could increase experience of other teams.
>

plus we're really nosey....

Post a reply to this message

ingo wrote:
> 

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

LOL!  

I think it taught me too much patience.  Last night I let a picture
parse for about half an hour before I realized I had an infinite loop.

"D'oh!  Stupid missing #end" - not Homer Simpson

> 
> Ingo

-- 
Tom A.
There's nothing like cooking and eating outside, unless you like
comfort. - Henny Youngman
Deja mail is gone.  Look for me at raugost at yahoo . com

Post a reply to this message

Having previously worked in several software houses, I think that the
team has done a brilliant job of hitting their software deadline 17
times, and only missing by one day once. We used to miss about half of
our software deadlines. There'd be somebody who decided to put in a tiny
last minute change that caused the entire package to fail to compile
correctly.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:08:32 +0100, Mike Williams <mik### [at] nospamplease>
wrote:

>Having previously worked in several software houses, I think that the
>team has done a brilliant job of hitting their software deadline 17
>times, and only missing by one day once. 

Yes, the POV-Team is pretty darn good at what they do. There's no
question about that. I just wish that the quality level of POV would
somehow rub off on the quality level of the operating system I use to
run it.  :)

Later,
Glen

Post a reply to this message

Yeah, really nosey.

Tom Melly wrote:

> plus we're really nosey....

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

"Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde> wrote in message news:3CCFD20A.D1DCCBE3@gmx.de...
> Yeah, really nosey.
>
> Tom Melly wrote:
>
> > plus we're really nosey....

I really needed to get some certain code that I am awaiting into this RC, as
the time for testing is running out, and this code needs to be well-tested.

The folks supplying the code initial promised it early Monday (my time), and
then that slipped, and it slipped again, and finally we decided to just release
the RC without the code.

When it turns up I'll make an EXE-only release with it built in, and just
hope enough folks download it to make it well-tested before the next RC.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message