3 ms·
I am trying to think of a time that a project has gone dark like this to develop the "next awesome version" and succeeded. I can't think of a time where it's w
by icey 17y ago
I am trying to think of a time that a project has gone dark like this to develop the "next awesome version" and succeeded.
I can't think of a time where it's worked, but I'm sure there's at least one example of it happening, right?
- teilo 17y agoEmacs. Yeah, it was developed open source, but how many people, honestly, paid any attention at all to the trunk builds before the next major release? http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsReleaseDates http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/EmacsReleaseDates
- icey 17y agoTaking a long time between versions isn't the same as going completely dark between versions though, is it? I mean, people could see what was going on in emacs as it was being developed if they were curious. And as far as I'm aware, there weren't significant rewrites between versions.
- jrockway 17y agohow many people, honestly, paid any attention at all to the trunk builds before the next major release How many people used the "stable" version while Emacs 23 was being prepared for release? I don't know of anyone; Emacs 23 had too many useful features for anyone to wait. Notice how Emacs users had the option of using an "unstable" version before it was released, whereas Textmate users don't have that option.
- boucher 17y agoDelicious Library. Took Shipley over four years to ship version 2, and it was rewritten at least once, and possibly twice, before it ever saw the light of day.