[Ardour-Dev] Licensing and enforced payments

John Emmas johne53 at tiscali.co.uk
Sat Jan 24 01:03:07 PST 2009

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Rigg"
> John, did your analysis include bugs reported to this list but
> not to Mantis? I usually report any bugs I find here, and have never used
> Mantis for example.
No John, it was just a rough analysis of the Mantis postings for one month
(Dec 2008).  It's impossible to do an in-depth analysis because there isn't
enough information (and even the information that exists, can't be relied
on) - e.g.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Vecchione"
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 2:25 PM, John Emmas wrote:
>> Believe it or not, some of the reporters were even still running Version
>> 0.99 !!
> [ ... ]
> For another thing, I would question that ANYONE is still using .9x series,
I'm inclined to agree with Thomas here - and yet that's what they said in
their reports.  It surely discredits any bug report if the reporter can't
even report the correct product version.

For all these reasons, I think it's pointless to attempt any qualitative
assessment of what might or might not happen to the number or accuracy of
future bug reports.  It's just speculation and can't possibly be anything

But don't forget that the "paid-for svn" idea is being proposed as an option
of last resort - i.e. to be used if the voluntary schemes all fail.  However
I agree with Ben Loftis, that the discussion has gone about as far as it can
go.  It's really up to Paul now to whittle down the list and provide some
direction, so that those who favour this option or that option can start
working on them..



More information about the Ardour-Dev mailing list