2.5 Release is not buggy. 2.5.1 OB is buggy. That's not to say 2.5R doesn't have bugs but if you're going to force a binary viewpoint then I point out your mistake.
If it has bugs, then it is buggy, is it not? Is the memory leak/allocation issue a 2.5.1 OB problem? Are there not pages and pages of bugs/crashes/issues with 2.5 when it was still in beta?
Originally Posted by xXNightEagleXx
Let's not be naive here, and this is for everyone. People cannot just pretend a software to be bug-free, not because it cannot be done, but because the cost skyrocket (cost being more related to time rather than money...eg. nasa stuffs). So contrary to what ICE believe, it is expected to a software to be buggy (so don't take it personal Fredef) with the condition that the bug itself does not offer a direct impact on the 'workflow' of the software or it is not a minor bugs festival (so many little bugs that does not prevent to use the software altogether).
Sorry, but I think we need to take a step back. I've never said that a software should/would not have bugs, I simply made that first statement to poke a massive hole in Frederf's claim that 2.5 is not buggy, with evidence being the memory leak/allocation issue.
Originally Posted by - Ice
Do software programs naturally have bugs? I don't think so.
Again, this is in relation to Frederf's humans and fat cells comment. A human can live the healthiest life possible and will still have fat cells by nature. A software will not, by its own nature, develop bugs (unless the software can re-write itself, but that's getting more complicated; I'm sure DCS does not re-write itself on the user's PC); these are imperfections injected by the programmer. Make a "Hello World!" program and it may or may not have bugs... it's not due to the software but due to the abilities of the programmer.
Again, memory leak? Memory allocation? Doesn't really matter, call it what you want, because ED sure didn't know what to call it!! Point is that ED does not know its own product, as shown by the fact that ED acknowledged it as a memory leak, then later as a memory allocation issue.
Originally Posted by Frederf
But remember the origin of this discussion: Ice doesn't like the Beta-Release two branch scheme. He says what's the point of two branches if both suck.
Building another strawman? Please do point out where I said what you claim I said; otherwise, I'd appreciate it if you don't put words in my mouth.
Originally Posted by Frederf
I maintain that the multi-branch scheme is a good one and has provided much benefit to DCS compared to the single-branch approach.
The multi-branch scheme, an approach used by other game devs, is a good one. You won't find any argument from me there. However, just because Game Studio XYZ does it and ED does the same thing does not mean ED is doing it correctly. See the difference there?
Originally Posted by - Ice
Just because other developers follow steps 1, 2, and 3 does not mean ED is doing it right when it takes steps 1, 2, and 3.
![[Linked Image]](https://i.imgur.com/qiUhOU4.jpg)
Point is that ED does not know its own product, as shown by the fact that ED acknowledged it as a memory leak, then later as a memory allocation issue.
