Features Download
From: Vincent Sanders <vince-DgXf7JAplXVbejMqVEbnxkB+6BGkLq7r <at> public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: User feedback requested (esp. RISC OS)
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.web.netsurf.user
Date: Tuesday 2nd October 2012 17:49:56 UTC (over 5 years ago)
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 08:15:00PM +0100, David H Wild wrote:
> In article ,
>    Bryn Evans 
> > Tried the second Sept 30th release and seems ok -
> > RiscPC, StrongArm, RO4ยท02, 130Mb memory.
> In my case using RO 6.20.
> I have had no crashes but there is a silly with Flickr which doesn't
> produce the individual images - although it does show the images on the
> index page. With the March version I could see the pictures but there was
> message telling me to use Javascript for the best results. This message
> now disappeared, but I'd rather have the pictures.
> The readme file needs replacing, as it applies to the older system and
> tells you how to install the boot and system files which are not supplied
> with the new version.

Although this message is a reply to Mr Wild *everyone* should read it
and understand what I am saying. 

I will endeavour to be as clear as I can be. If that comes across as
overly abrupt I apologise but before any additional misunderstanding
occurs I wish to make these points clear.

 * The Continuous Integration (CI) builds are produced for the
   NetSurf Developers.

 * We have chosen to make them publicly available *only* as a courtesy
   to our users.

 * The prominent and clear warning in the big orange box [1] is there
   for a reason, please read what it says. If you disagree its not
   open for discussion, simply do not use the builds!

 * The CI builds are *NOT* in any way, whatsoever, at all (can I make
   this more emphatic?) to be considered a usable release or something
   stable. If a build happens to work and not explode you are fortunate.

 * We are happy to accept reports of issues on these builds as long as
   full and concise information is provided in the report. A patch to
   fix the problem is more than welcome (do discuss it with the
   developers first - we may have already fixed it). 

 * Opinion on what steps we "should" or "ought" to take to resolve an
   issue is best kept to yourself, especially if you have not
   understood the above points.

 * If these simple guidelines are ignored or argued over we will have
   to reconsider the open access policy FOR CI BUILDS (before anyone
   misquotes me).
In summary:

 These builds are a debugging tool for the NetSurf developers which
 you can choose to use if you wish, as long as you understand they are
 in no way a release. If you find a bug reporting it clearly and
 concisely is fine patches very welcome and opinion is not useful.

In this case:

 A report that the additional resources mentioned in the readme were
 missing (which is now fixed BTW) would have been fine. The exact
 version used and other information would have been nice to have. 

 That was where it should have been left and now I have clarified the
 purpose of these builds I assume that in future the issue will not
 arise again.

[1] http://ci.netsurf-browser.org/builds/

Regards Vincent
CD: 3ms