3 ms·

When I see this I pretty much read it as: > This software is not mature yet. Beta testers are highly welcomed, but neither users nor developers get value from

by pavon 4y ago

When I see this I pretty much read it as: > This software is not mature yet. Beta testers are highly welcomed, but neither users nor developers get value from people running a beta release that is over a year old. Which is a perfectly reasonable position for a software project to be in. And if they want to continue to treat their project as Beta software indefinitely that's fine too, but I will treat it as such.

mort96 4y ago
Why would you read it as that? It's clearly not "mature" as in "doesn't need to change much", but it seems like they're seriously committed to quality assurance and testing and stuff you generally don't associate with beta software. You don't get to write off all software that's not super compatible with some distros' packaging models as "beta software".
- em-bee 4y ago
  beta is the last step before release, which should be stable. if it is not mature enough for a stable release then that's the right label
  - mort96 4y ago
    Where the hell are you getting your definitions from? You're claiming a piece of software is in beta because in your opinion the releases are too frequent? I suppose you think Google Chrome is in beta too, because it also isn't "mature" enough to be "stable"? Beta is the last step before release. Nowhere in the definition of "release" is there a requirement that there will be years until the next release, or whatever you think "stable" means in this context. And frankly, release frequency isn't even the topic of the post; a lack of distros doing QA of their packages is the topic. Which hardly falls on Bottles for being "unstable".
    - em-bee 4y ago
      stable means that i can use it for a year without needing updates. frequent releases are nice to add new features. but if i don't need the features then i should be able to continue using the old version. if frequent releases are caused by bugs that need to be fixed then that's not stable.
  - mort96 4y ago
    Actually, I don't even understand why this discussion of stability is at all relevant. Let's imagine the software was mature to the point where it literally never needed to change again; every last bug is squashed, every desired feature is implemented, the final version of the software is released. What exactly changes? TFA isn't primarily complaining that distros are packaging old versions, after all, but complaining that distros aren't doing enough QA. What would prevent a distro from linking a perfectly mature Bottles against an old version of GTK which has a bug which breaks Bottles? So even if you have a personal definition of "beta" which categorises this software as "beta"... that's not even remotely related to the contents of the article.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      the article doesn't go into detail about what the problems are. basically only these two sentences hint at the issue: many of these unofficial packages behave abnormally due to the nature of distribution models Bottles is a complex software that receives frequent updates and requires several dependencies at a minimum specific version to properly work but yes, you are right, arguing that bottles is beta seems besides the point. the problem appears to be that distribution packagers seem to think that linking bottles to old libraries is better than not having those bottles at all. if that is really the issue then i agree that this is not always a good idea. unfortunately the article is not clear about that. they could have said: do not package bottles unless your distribution can satisfy the exact version requirements that the bottles need. on the other hand, it is not true that old libraries are always a problem. which brings us to lack of QA to test if those backports actually work. again, the article just hints at the issue without spelling out the problem in detail. Our invitation is addressed to all those who are packaging Bottles incorrectly and/or do not provide adequate tests was added later. in summary though their request is reasonable. they do invite the packagers to work together and are not bitter or spiteful. let's hope that the packagers will listen.

by pavon 4y ago

mort96 4y ago

Why would you read it as that? It's clearly not "mature" as in "doesn't need to change much", but it seems like they're seriously committed to quality assurance and testing and stuff you generally don't associate with beta software. You don't get to write off all software that's not super compatible with some distros' packaging models as "beta software".

em-bee 4y ago
beta is the last step before release, which should be stable. if it is not mature enough for a stable release then that's the right label
- mort96 4y ago
  Where the hell are you getting your definitions from? You're claiming a piece of software is in beta because in your opinion the releases are too frequent? I suppose you think Google Chrome is in beta too, because it also isn't "mature" enough to be "stable"? Beta is the last step before release. Nowhere in the definition of "release" is there a requirement that there will be years until the next release, or whatever you think "stable" means in this context. And frankly, release frequency isn't even the topic of the post; a lack of distros doing QA of their packages is the topic. Which hardly falls on Bottles for being "unstable".
  - em-bee 4y ago
    stable means that i can use it for a year without needing updates. frequent releases are nice to add new features. but if i don't need the features then i should be able to continue using the old version. if frequent releases are caused by bugs that need to be fixed then that's not stable.
- mort96 4y ago
  Actually, I don't even understand why this discussion of stability is at all relevant. Let's imagine the software was mature to the point where it literally never needed to change again; every last bug is squashed, every desired feature is implemented, the final version of the software is released. What exactly changes? TFA isn't primarily complaining that distros are packaging old versions, after all, but complaining that distros aren't doing enough QA. What would prevent a distro from linking a perfectly mature Bottles against an old version of GTK which has a bug which breaks Bottles? So even if you have a personal definition of "beta" which categorises this software as "beta"... that's not even remotely related to the contents of the article.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    the article doesn't go into detail about what the problems are. basically only these two sentences hint at the issue: many of these unofficial packages behave abnormally due to the nature of distribution models Bottles is a complex software that receives frequent updates and requires several dependencies at a minimum specific version to properly work but yes, you are right, arguing that bottles is beta seems besides the point. the problem appears to be that distribution packagers seem to think that linking bottles to old libraries is better than not having those bottles at all. if that is really the issue then i agree that this is not always a good idea. unfortunately the article is not clear about that. they could have said: do not package bottles unless your distribution can satisfy the exact version requirements that the bottles need. on the other hand, it is not true that old libraries are always a problem. which brings us to lack of QA to test if those backports actually work. again, the article just hints at the issue without spelling out the problem in detail. Our invitation is addressed to all those who are packaging Bottles incorrectly and/or do not provide adequate tests was added later. in summary though their request is reasonable. they do invite the packagers to work together and are not bitter or spiteful. let's hope that the packagers will listen.