3 ms·
And it was a valid Release Candidate, they could have gone live with it. A bigger strategic decision was made to take various concepts from it and apply them to
by cmdkeen 10y ago
And it was a valid Release Candidate, they could have gone live with it. A bigger strategic decision was made to take various concepts from it and apply them to .Net in general not just web specific things. At the same time it gave the ASP team more time to tidy things up and be more consistent in terms of new patterns in a few places.
Microsoft was open very quickly that they were making big changes and that RC1 was going to look very different from 1.0. There has been some chaos but it means we are all going to end up with a 1.0 release that is much better, rather than getting a breaking 2.0 release in short order afterwards.
It should never be assumed that a Release Candidate is going to make it into production, especially from an enterprise software vendor launching a new product. If the lasting legacy of this is more people taking that on board then that will be a good thing.
- spriggan3 10y ago> And it was a valid Release Candidate I think they messed up calling it a RC1 and leaving it as it is for so long. People started writing drivers and what not and were confident that the stack wouldn't change too much, now they are going to wait the official release (i.e. at least a year) because the trust is broken. They should have called it a beta and not let it live for like a year. You don't do that. > It should never be assumed that a Release Candidate is going to make it into production Of course, but release candidate also means that there wont be any significant change in the tooling or philosophy. RC2 has completely different tooling and the code is completely incompatible. It doesn't build up trust.