I'll have to agree on that and add a bit +1 here. Granted I do not own a copy of indigo, but I think my opinion is still worth a little something, and having un-organized releases is "bad" in terms that like Wyt said, some people do miss out. If you have to delay the release of the other OSes until all the versions are ready.WytRaven wrote:I will reiterate what I have stated multiple times else where. All indigo releases should look like this:
Mac Universal Binary containing Intel 32 and 64bit
Insert list of version appropriate Mac exporters/plugins
Linux 32bit
Linux 64bit
Insert list of version appropriate Linux exporters/plugins
Windows 32bit
Windows 64bit
Insert list of version appropriate Windows exporters/plugins
Doing releases any other way is just going to continuously piss off those that miss out. Pissed off customers, or potential customers, is not a good thing.
As far as I am concerned the biggest issue with indigo since going commercial is the lack of an organised release process.
Ono, Ben, you can't have it both ways. Indigo is either a commercial product or it is a piece of experimental freeware. If it is commercial then you need to start behaving like commercial software vendors and not freeware vendors.
As an example, just the other day I was over at BlenderArtists.org where someone made a post about the indigo competition and how there were prizes to be won, to try and get more people involved in the community (I think the OP was Godzilla, not sure) and in one of the replies it was mentionned that Linux wasn't supported by Indigo anymore, to which I replied that there was indeed a 2.0 release for linux but not for 2.2.1. And this is precisely (I think) what is confusing some people it's that there don't seem to be releases for all OSes for each version or at least I couldn't find them all easily which is just as bad.
Hmm yeah, that's about it. Yes, that wall of text was my 2c. Wait till I put in 2$
