Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!pa.dec.com!bacchus!mwm From: mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: FACTS ABOUT WB2.0 (Was: Re:WB2.0 for non-A3000) Message-ID: Date: 11 Feb 91 19:02:43 GMT References: <44170@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <43944@ut-emx.uucp> Sender: news@pa.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 32 In-Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 9 Feb 91 07:34:38 GMT In article <43944@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: Well, Setpatch may end up being used under 2.0 (speculation -- not developer knowledge, mind you) to pick up a couple of last-minute bugs, I'd prefer it to be completely solid. It's actually speculation about naming, not about whether setpatch will be used. Given the way CBM is acting about bugs, I'd be surprised if the ROM version of 2.0 used setpath on release. Given the complexity of what's in ROM, and the nature of complex software, I'd be equally surprised if there were no bugs found between the 2.0 ROM release and the next ROM release. So I expect that there will be systems sold with the 2.0 ROM release that use SetPatch. Whether they will be called 2.0 or not is an open question. And for those who want to leap on this and say "Ah HAH, they have to use setpatch anyway, why not release it with bugs!" - you're wrong. There's a difference between releasing it with "no known bugs" and releasing it with bugs. Doing the latter is unavoidable. Burning ROMs with bugs that will be fixed before the software gets to the dealers is silly.