On 2017-05-19 6:30 AM, Michal Kozusznik wrote:
> On 19.5.2017 14:38, Tomek wrote:
>> You must understand one thing - first You stop developing v3, than release
>> feature stripped v4, than demand to report issue/feature request You already
>> know it is missing...
>> Maybe this news for You but people used this software for more than 10 years -
>> they got used to functionality - what we've expected was improvement (new
>> features) not regress...
>
> Cannot agree more.
> Apart from discussion about chosen technology and related impacts (especially on
> user experience of desktop users), pgAdmin4 shouldn't be yet published as stable
> release. Since pgA4 remains feature-wise-incomplete comparing to pgA3, it should
> be called 'alpha' and therefore it shouldn't be offered as replacement of pgA3.
> In case it is intended to be something else than pgA3's successor, then
> shouldn't be called pgAdmin (to avoid confusion while comparing features).
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what alpha vs stable means.
It is NOT about the amount or kinds of features. Rather it is about whether the
features that do exist have been adequately tested and certified by the
developers that they are reasonably free of bugs.
If the software never crashes and the features it does have work as they are
supposed to, and it has been tested widely enough to be confident in this fact,
then the software is stable.
Lacking features that a prior version has does NOT make something alpha.
At worst it means the new version is incompatible with the prior version, which
is a completely separate issue save where the incompatibility is due to a bug
rather than an intentional omission.
-- Darren Duncan
