[cvsnt] Re: CVSNT and Subversion comparison

[Glen Starrett]

Tony Hoyle wrote:
> In general cvsnt develoment has been very stable - the bug list was 90% 
> installation problems and old versions and had frankly become a waste of 
> time.  The list is a much better place for it as the simple stuff can be 
> filtered and I can concentrate on the real bugs.
> 
> Most bugs are found pre-release.  Any extra ones are found usually 
> within a few days of the initial release and fixed (which is why I often 
> say don't upgrade immediately).
> 
> All stable releases are released with zero known bugs, unless noted (for 
> example rename isn't worth fixing as it's being gutted and rewritten in 
> the development branch).

Agreed, there will likely be no release of complex software that is 
totally bug free.  Maybe what is needed is something in between a full 
bug reporting database and what exists today.  Call it a knowledge base, 
and include bugs and workarounds as they are found for releases.

Something like that would add to the new features in the release notes. 
  E.g. .58d implements the new permissions framework, etc.

Maybe this is just reactionary from the recent struggle to have a stable 
version with all features I use stable in it that includes the new 
permissions framework.  The progression from .58 series to today seems 
bumpier than it has been in the past.

I would also like to see improving on the test scripts -- I know you 
don't want to turn maintaining that into a full time job, but in the 
name of stability I think it would help considerably, or at least 
prevent things from returning.

That's my 0.02, FWIW.

-- 
Glen Starrett