Having a method that works for bug searching and reporting (fixing
Buggy, perhaps?) should be a high priority. For example, I know that
*some* folks are seeing the "empty wave/Dr. Wave" problem, but I don't
know how many, who's found a good fix, and whether the Wave devs are
aware of the issue.
The WaveFAQ wave is turning into an informal bugtracker (and casual
information exchange, which is it's original purpose).
Seems like the Wave team didn't expect that the users were going to
use the sandbox more for communications than for extension
development.
> Having a method that works for bug searching and reporting (fixing > Buggy, perhaps?) should be a high priority. For example, I know that > *some* folks are seeing the "empty wave/Dr. Wave" problem, but I don't > know how many, who's found a good fix, and whether the Wave devs are > aware of the issue.
> Seems like the Wave team didn't expect that the users were going to > use the sandbox more for communications than for extension > development.
What, we thought there were no client bugs?! Just kidding, of course. The client has a boatload (heh) of known bugs and unimplemented features. And we, for sure, want to know if you find more. But the reason we released it this early is to get developers developing, so that's our main focus right now.
On Jun 4, 1:14 pm, "Brian Kennish (Googler)" <byoo...@google.com>
wrote:
> What, we thought there were no client bugs?! Just kidding, of course.
> The client has a boatload (heh) of known bugs and unimplemented
> features. And we, for sure, want to know if you find more. But the
> reason we released it this early is to get developers developing, so
> that's our main focus right now.
My thought is that devs are going to have to use the platform
themselves hands-on a bit before they will have the right visions for
writing extensions. So anything that impedes that is a blocker for
your main goal.
On Jun 4, 1:14 pm, "Brian Kennish (Googler)" <byoo...@google.com>
wrote:
> And we, for sure, want to know if you find more. But the
> reason we released it this early is to get developers developing, so
> that's our main focus right now.
Might make sense to give us access somehow to the "boatload" you
already know about so we don't duplicate effort reporting them and we
can avoid them when planning to write extensions.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM, MaggieL<margaret.le...@gmail.com> wrote: > Might make sense to give us access somehow to the "boatload" you > already know about so we don't duplicate effort reporting them and we > can avoid them when planning to write extensions.
Good idea. There isn't a practical way to do a dump of our bug DB, but perhaps we can do some sort of general writeup instead.
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM, MaggieL<margaret.le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Might make sense to give us access somehow to the "boatload" you
> > already know about so we don't duplicate effort reporting them and we
> > can avoid them when planning to write extensions.
> Good idea. There isn't a practical way to do a dump of our bug DB, but
> perhaps we can do some sort of general writeup instead.
|
