From xemacs-m  Wed Jan 22 10:20:30 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
          by xemacs.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP
	  id KAA07839 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 10:20:28 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQbzpp11213; Wed, 22 Jan 1997 11:20:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 11:20:28 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQbzpp11213.199701221620@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: 20.0 release schedule
In-Reply-To: <u94tg922e0.fsf@neal.ctd.comsat.com>
References: <m2k9p7jo6f.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
	<u94tg922e0.fsf@neal.ctd.comsat.com>

Neal Becker writes:
 > >>>>> "sb" == Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com> writes:
 > 
 >     sb> The 20.0 release is going to be this weekend.
 > 
 > Really?  Am I the only one who finds 20.0 to be much less stable than
 > 19.4?  19.4 has been extremely reliable - the best xemacs ever.  I
 > stopped using 20.0 for daily work because of various problems and
 > crashes.

I see crashes too, but they are not frequent enough to make me
uneasy about using XEmacs for development work, which I have been
doing steadily with the betas for about a month now.

No release is perfect.  But you can make up for a lot in the
hearts of users by being responsive.  What I think is very
important is when the reports of crashes start coming in and
fixes are found for them, that you do interim releases.  A crash
that is an annoyance the first time it happens is an outrage the
fiftieth time it happens two months later.

