[sldev] 1.23.4 released in a hurry ? NO.

[Boy Lane]

That's absolutely the most ever single bullsh*t posting I've read on this 
mailing list. 1.23.4 is the worst viewer ever, it did not fix most of 
existing bugs but introduced tons of new ones. LL did not respond to most of 
important user concerns but ignored them, as in the past. And you guys are 
proud to follow your new release policy by pushing unfinished software out 
to users for nothing but political reasons. Shame on you Linden Lab!

Boy Lane



> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:35:48 -0400
> From: "Kent Quirk (Q Linden)" <q at lindenlab.com>
> Subject: Re: [sldev] 1.23.4 released in a hurry ? NO.
> To: Latif Khalifa <latifer at streamgrid.net>
> Cc: sldev <sldev at lists.secondlife.com>
> Message-ID: <A0AC2AD0-18A8-4C57-9693-23627BD9E759 at lindenlab.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes


> I absolutely claim that 1.23 is not only of releasable quality, but
> the best viewer we've ever shipped. It met its design goals on RC1.
> The bugs that were found and fixed in the next 3 RCs were minimal. On
> a global statistics level, the crash rates are lower than they've ever
> been, even when you include crashes caused by specific video cards.
>
> There are some individuals who are upset about some of the design
> decisions, like the redesign of pie menus. That's not a quality issue.
> There are other individuals who are upset about some of the technical
> decisions, such as the imposition of rendering limits where we never
> had them before. That's not a quality issue either. And there are
> people who don't like the new Adult-Only stuff. That's also not a
> quality issue.
>
> The definition of quality is meeting the specification. We executed on
> this viewer better than we've ever done it before, and I'm pretty
> proud of our team for doing it.
>
> By the way, contrary to the implication in the subject line, we
> released 1.23.4 almost exactly according to the schedule I announced
> internally in February. The internal decision to ship was based on
> quality. As every professional software organization does, for every
> open issue we balance the risk of shipping a product with that issue
> against the risk of trying to fix it. When all the risks of shipping
> are lower than the risks of fixing, we ship it. Which is what we did
> with RC4.
>
> Q