3 ms·

"today's builds" arn't todays. They're months behind what MS are developing.

joshuapants 11y ago
Undoubtedly, but the issue is that they only have 2 months to take care of any bugs in their recent code. If the tech preview builds are anything to go by, the stuff that hasn't been released yet is going to need a lot of testing and fixing. I don't think it's insurmountable, but they definitely have their work cut out for them.
- sangnoir 11y ago
  > Undoubtedly, but the issue is that they only have 2 months to take care of any bugs in their recent code Parent is suggesting that what you think is "recent code" isn't recent at all (if you mean the tech previews). The leaked internal builds are more recent, but only relatively so.Therefore you can't extrapolate the number of current bugs remaining from tech previews.
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    Right, I got that. The tech previews are "old" code, that is, they've gone through testing internally and have been deemed ready for release to the public for further testing. It's reasonable to assume that anything newer hasn't been tested to that point yet, so they still have a lot of work to do on the things we haven't seen yet. It's also possible that this whole thing is a psyops campaign and Microsoft has been sending out purposely buggy releases while sitting on a build that works amazingly so that they can appear to have released an excellent product under a major time crunch. Unlikely, but fun to think about.
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      > It's reasonable to assume that anything newer hasn't been tested to that point yet, so they still have a lot of work to do on the things we haven't seen yet. I disagree on that part - I do not think that is reasonable. If I read correctly, your assumption is that pipeline for everything is: Develop > Test internally > polish > public testing > fix. It's also reasonable to assume that not everything needs to be tested by the public, and only those deemed to require public testing were included in public previews. There a lot of reasons to release 'old' code, especially on a large codebase. It's not that they intentionally send out "buggy releases while sitting on a build that works", but gating is complicated business.
Hurtak 11y ago
Is it really months? I thought it's more like few weeks max. Do you have any source for that statement?
- minot 11y ago
  Leaked internal builds are our best clues. Those leaked builds are not nightly builds either (there is some QA before it gets there) and then there is some informed speculation because we didn't get any updates for weeks on end.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  The Microsoft field people I work with are usually a couple of weeks ahead.

Undoubtedly, but the issue is that they only have 2 months to take care of any bugs in their recent code. If the tech preview builds are anything to go by, the stuff that hasn't been released yet is going to need a lot of testing and fixing. I don't think it's insurmountable, but they definitely have their work cut out for them.

sangnoir 11y ago
> Undoubtedly, but the issue is that they only have 2 months to take care of any bugs in their recent code Parent is suggesting that what you think is "recent code" isn't recent at all (if you mean the tech previews). The leaked internal builds are more recent, but only relatively so.Therefore you can't extrapolate the number of current bugs remaining from tech previews.
- joshuapants 11y ago
  Right, I got that. The tech previews are "old" code, that is, they've gone through testing internally and have been deemed ready for release to the public for further testing. It's reasonable to assume that anything newer hasn't been tested to that point yet, so they still have a lot of work to do on the things we haven't seen yet. It's also possible that this whole thing is a psyops campaign and Microsoft has been sending out purposely buggy releases while sitting on a build that works amazingly so that they can appear to have released an excellent product under a major time crunch. Unlikely, but fun to think about.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    > It's reasonable to assume that anything newer hasn't been tested to that point yet, so they still have a lot of work to do on the things we haven't seen yet. I disagree on that part - I do not think that is reasonable. If I read correctly, your assumption is that pipeline for everything is: Develop > Test internally > polish > public testing > fix. It's also reasonable to assume that not everything needs to be tested by the public, and only those deemed to require public testing were included in public previews. There a lot of reasons to release 'old' code, especially on a large codebase. It's not that they intentionally send out "buggy releases while sitting on a build that works", but gating is complicated business.

Hurtak 11y ago

Is it really months? I thought it's more like few weeks max. Do you have any source for that statement?

minot 11y ago
Leaked internal builds are our best clues. Those leaked builds are not nightly builds either (there is some QA before it gets there) and then there is some informed speculation because we didn't get any updates for weeks on end.
Spooky23 11y ago
The Microsoft field people I work with are usually a couple of weeks ahead.