home
products
contribute
download
documentation
forum
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
All posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
General Forums
News and Announcements
MediaPortal 1 Development - get involved!
Contact us
RSS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oxan" data-source="post: 821793" data-attributes="member: 97484"><p>(Disclaimer: I'm not a developer of MediaPortal itself, but I think they share my ideas). </p><p></p><p>1) Not really. In big software like MediaPortal there are many different areas where things can change which don't interfere with each other. For example the SQLite rewrite and the native blu-ray support have nothing to do with each other at all (just picking two examples from the forum). Of course changes in the same component might cause problems, but that's only a tiny fraction of the changes.</p><p></p><p>2) It's not about having everybody testing all installers. It's about people testing a feature they want to have. If 100 people test only two installers, that's not worse than having 2 people test 100 installers (I think it's even better). Also, developers like to have things easy too. I'm a developer myself but with published installers the chance I'll test one of them is a lot higher then when I've to build it myself from source. </p><p></p><p>3) I don't think testing integrated branches is better. It makes tracing back errors to the source a lot harder. </p><p>Also, I don't think Firefox is the best example: it's quite strictly managed by Mozilla, which have way more manpower then MP has.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oxan, post: 821793, member: 97484"] (Disclaimer: I'm not a developer of MediaPortal itself, but I think they share my ideas). 1) Not really. In big software like MediaPortal there are many different areas where things can change which don't interfere with each other. For example the SQLite rewrite and the native blu-ray support have nothing to do with each other at all (just picking two examples from the forum). Of course changes in the same component might cause problems, but that's only a tiny fraction of the changes. 2) It's not about having everybody testing all installers. It's about people testing a feature they want to have. If 100 people test only two installers, that's not worse than having 2 people test 100 installers (I think it's even better). Also, developers like to have things easy too. I'm a developer myself but with published installers the chance I'll test one of them is a lot higher then when I've to build it myself from source. 3) I don't think testing integrated branches is better. It makes tracing back errors to the source a lot harder. Also, I don't think Firefox is the best example: it's quite strictly managed by Mozilla, which have way more manpower then MP has. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Forums
News and Announcements
MediaPortal 1 Development - get involved!
Contact us
RSS
Top
Bottom