4 ms·
The tools story that you raise is a real challenge, for users and for the team. I agree with you. As we were reaching RTM, we realized we had gotten ourselves w
by runfaster2000 10y ago
The tools story that you raise is a real challenge, for users and for the team. I agree with you. As we were reaching RTM, we realized we had gotten ourselves wedged, pretty significantly. We had fortune 500 customers in production on our pre 1.0 RTM betas who were pushing hard for a 1.0 RTM runtime stack. At the same time, we came to the conclusion that the tools were not ready and needed significant changes (many of them breaking, as you call out). We decided to ship the runtime as RTM (now twice) and leave the tools in preview. The customers who were pushing hard are now happy (modulo the tools changes) and we're continuing to push forward.
If we were to do it all again with the knowledge we have now, we would skip all the changes and move directly to the final plan. We're sad about the resets, both to our users and because we were not nearly as efficient as we could otherwise have been. We're now on a much more solid plan and are working to land it.
- rubber_duck 10y agoIntrresting, I always assumed that the whole mess was caused by management pressure to ship something ASAP, I just didn't figure it was outside management pressure :) Anyway .NET is too big for this to be detrimental and I'm only complaining because I like the work being done and the situation is turning off more traditional enterprise devs who have different expectations (eg. tooling in VS is still iffy but on 1.0 it wasn't even working when a colleague tried it). You guys still deserve a huge pat on the back - you used to be a pot smoking hippie if you used OSS in the .NET side of enterprise, now those people are contributing on GH, using git on VSO, using CLI tools that can be automated easily, etc.