Textpattern is not an RC
According to the wikipedia, a Release Candidate is “a final product, ready to release unless fatal bugs emerge”. As someone who has developed software for over 10 years I would agree with this definition.
Get real, Textpattern is not a release candidate. Stop kidding yourselves. It’s obvious to me that Textpattern has somehow reverted to a pre-alpha state or “the stage where designers are still wondering about what functionalities the product should have”.
Don’t get me wrong, I still use and like Textpattern. But its getting harder and harder to keep up with the software. New features are constantly introduced with little or no documentation to help users understand what is changing. This will only start to discourage people from using Textpattern if it hasn’t already.
So please, call it what it is or make it what you call it. If its a release candidate, there shouldn’t be new features introduced every day. And if you insist on constantly checking in changes, don’t pretend its a release candidate when there’s no conceivable “release” in sight.
Comments
20. July 2005
This is most of why I’m considering moving away from Textpattern altogether. The developers are more interested in adding bells/whistles to the package than fixing bugs and locking down the source for a final release (or, as you point out, a proper RC).
Perhaps Dean & Co. simply aren’t mature enough developers to push a finished product out the door. But, that’s just my view on it.
20. July 2005
FWIW, they do seem to be listening. And if that’s tha case, then I’m with reid and several others who’d be OK with never having an official “version 1.0” so long as there’s a roadmap for feature and API freezes.
20. July 2005
I’d be fine with no official 1.0 (although it’s hard to sell people on a beta product). I’d like to see, as you and reid and others are pointing out, a freeze on new features, a bump in bug and logic fixes, and a reliable schedule.
Heck, why not go the traditional open source route and release nightly builds? Shouldn’t be that hard to drop a version into a zip file right after you commit to SVN at, say, 0000 GMT.
21. July 2005
I agree with you both. As I said, I like Textpattern. I think the software is well designed for the most part and the improvements that are being made are making it even better.
But take a look at some top notch open source projects. I would consider eclipse to be one of them. The eclipse project releases nightly builds, milestone builds and release builds. Each release typically has anywhere from 1 to 5 release candidates depending on the number and severity of bugs that are found. Before the release stage there are several milestone builds that incorporate a significant amount of new feaures. And each release includes detailed release notes. The last release of eclipse went through 4 release candidates in under a month.
Is this more work for developers? Absolutely. Does this lead to a much stronger and well informed community around the product? Absolutely.
And yeah, I know, its open source, anyone can contribute. But people will be more willing to contribute when they can see progress being made. In any job I’ve ever had, progress in software development is measured in stable releases, not the number of SVN checkins.
4. August 2005
Having used Textpattern since g1.10, I’d have to say I’ve always used it because it’s light, free, flexible and good-lookin’. In other words, it Works.
If I were concerned about procedural correctness, I’d have left a long time ago.
“This is most of why I’m considering moving away from Textpattern altogether. The developers are more interested in adding bells/whistles to the package than fixing bugs and locking down the source for a final release (or, as you point out, a proper RC).”
I guess I don’t understand this.
The software works well, has always worked well, and has been steadily improving over the past year and a half. Why does it matter to you whether they have a consistent schedule? Are you just an eager fan, or what?
5. August 2005
Here here. While the abuse of the RC term doesn’t bother me so much, the pain of upgrading and the total lack of any kind of real documentation make keeping up to date a full-time job.
I love txp and will definately continue to contribute, but it’s sad to see it in such disarray on the alleged eve of 1.0. There’s so many features I feel are essential for a real 1.0 release, too, but that’s a different post…
Jamie Wilkinson
Commenting is closed for this article.
