Is this for real - Xojo release an update which only has 7 bug fixes???
Surely this is either a joke, or they forgot to put all the new features into the “Release History” on their website???
r3 had 169 bug fixes
r3.1 got 11 bug fixed and
r3.2 got 7 more.
Nothing to complain about.
I prefer the shorter release cycle. It’s better than waiting 3 months (or way more) for fixes that could be critical.
I’m very grateful for the point releases since they often fix regressions that have no workaround. Thank you Xojo!
So if I have understood this correctly, we will now start seeing lots more regular POINT updates, as and when bugs are found - as opposed to an update every few months with a bulk of fixes?
That doesn’t seem so bad then
[quote=159615:@Richard Summers]Is this for real - Xojo release an update which only has 7 bug fixes???
Surely this is either a joke, or they forgot to put all the new features into the “Release History” on their website???[/quote]
This is a point release, which generally contain targeted bug fixes, not new features. I hope Xojo keep this up, I dislike waiting for critical bug fixes when sometimes they’re already fixed, but waiting for a release.
Yes, I agree (read my last post)
For some reason I never noticed this was a point upgrade. My bad
You must have posted a second before me
But I’m glad you agree
Well one the fixes was to do with a calculation error on money values so I’d say that was definitely critical!
I’m glad that you’re glad I agree
It would be a bit more intuitive if Xojo publically posted a three field versioning scheme. ie. Major.Minor.Maintenance
That way maintenance/bug fix releases would be obvious – 3.1.1 to 3.1.2 to 3.1.3 etc. New features would be 3.1.2 to 3.2.1 etc. However we can’t change that if they internally don’t operate like that now. No worries overall as I welcome regular maintenance releases
Yes Mike - that is what I originally meant.
I expected the jump from 3.1 to 3.2 to be a minor release with a few new features. I would have expected a bug fix only release to be 3.1.1
Never mind, so long as it is an improvement, and free, I can’t complain
I’m happy to download a new version every week, if it means getting extra bug fixes
Remember Richard, the actual version is 14.3.2, not 3.2. This means that the .2 is the bug version number.
Tim thanks for reminding me of that. I have inadvertently (for some weird reason) dis-associated the 2014 part of their versioning scheme. 2014.3.1 to 2014.3.2 Must have been from too many hockey pucks to the head. I am much too conditioned for a style of 2014.3.2 vs. 2014 Release 3.2
I’m actually more concerned by the point releases. They are only done when critical bugs are still present in the full release. Not a good sign that we seem to be getting more point releases as this simply means critical bugs slip through, and in this release not just once, but twice.
I would add: if there is a change in policy where you get a constant stream of bug fix releases, and only occasional releases with new features, then I’m all for it.
I personally am in favor of more frequent “bug fix” releases. Lets me know that more critical issues will be promptly addressed, rather than waiting for a “big” release.
I too, never associate the 2014 with the actual version.
Probably because it is presented as Xojo 2014, Release 3.2, instead of Xojo 2014.3.2
Never mind - semantics
Some regressions I simple don’t know how they happen with Xojo but they happen, and when they happen I with a quick fix. I don’t care if they do a 2014.3.3 four days after the 2014.3.2 to fix just one last thing they found. I’ve advocated in the past for this kind of supportive release model, it shows MUCH MORE respect to the user base than waiting months for some terrible bug as a floating point math error able to cause terrible financial losses or sending a spacial probe to the sun instead of moon. Keep going, and if necessary do a 2014.3.27, I don’t care.
And I wish to be able to edit my posts too.