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, RO4·02, 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
> 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
* 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  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
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