Thanks for your vote and continue

Great, developers seems to react positively. At the moment 72 votes.

It's also cool to see  an awareness from the community, I mean not just from the people who wrote articles or test some new stuff, but those who have to think about the future of their existing enterprise applications, how they will work in the future framework.

Of course, I have nothing against abstract classes or articles about master pages or datasources. But what's about the real projects? You can't seriously expect us to spend days on just having our projects running under .Net 2.0.

Things I hope will move in a better way with this petition (sorry this is my optimistic and utopist way of thinking).

One book will be rease soon about migration of existing projects. One book! You imagine the task. Why this has not been address properly by Microsoft, I still don't understand?

Even if we don't obtain a Beta 3, I wish like many that Microsoft engage themselves in an official statement about their Visual Studio update policy.

When you see the number of outstanding issues, no serious developers should get their current projects at risk.

On the feedback page, Adham Shaaban wrote this:

Developers who think the VS2005 RTM will be beta-quality (and it probably will be) should just wait for SP1. Judging from the number of issues being marked as "postponed" I bet a huge SP1 will follow not too long after the RTM. 

Sorry Adham but this won't happen. Maybe after 2 years you will see the Beta of the next version, Orcas or something similar, but I don't think officially at least give us a clear roadmap on Beta 2. It's only workarounds, beta patches, etc...

Sorry guys but using Google 24 hours per day to solve an issue about the lack of web projects or some weird and new unknown errors is really too much for me, I have more interesting things to do in my life.

I just see people are talking about waiting for an SP1. Dreamers!

With the incredible development power Microsoft has nowadays, they should be able to deliver.

So until we get an answer I encourage everybody to put their vote. Don't be shy and don't worry if on the feedback page you see the resolution setup to won't fix :-)

After all this is your tool, the one you have to use every day in your job. I know it's sound trivial but how do you think about a carpenter trying to build a cabinet with a toothpick.

 

1 Comment

  • [Reposting from a response in another blog article since people might not find it there]



    The beta2 code-base was frozen in Feb of this year, so your statement that "it is close to RTM" is not too accruate -- thousands of changes and bug-fixes have gone into the product since then. I'd be weary of making too many assumptions about the quality of the finished product based on a beta code-base that shiped 9 months before it.



    I've been on vacation the last few days (and fly back tomororw night), so am just catching up on the whole web project system thread (serves me right for finding an internet cafe to check my email).



    I'm planning on posting a blog post on Monday or Tuesday that goes into the web project system in more detail and why we've made some of the changes we've made.



    One thing I do want to clarrify is that most (if not all) of the "missing features" that have been called out as part of this discussion are now fully supported in post-beta2 builds. Specifically, some of the ones I've seen called out that I want to clarrify:



    1) Source control checks in \bin directory binaries. This was *never* by design (since it makes source control extremely painful and almost useless), but was a late-regression in the beta2 tree that wasn't caught in time. This has been fixed since then and not be an issue in the final product.



    2) Exclude file support. This was something we origionally thought wasn't needed because of a new feature in web compilation that allows projects to skip and continue over errors. The feedback after beta2 clearly indicated we were wrong so we added it back in. It will be fully supported in the final product.



    3) Solution-to-Solution references and Copy-Local assemblies. This was a missing feature in Beta2 that we've also added and will fully support in the final product.



    4) Assembly created for each page with Publish Web wizard. The web project system supports a granular level of assembly creation. In Beta2 it supported lots of different levels, but the Publish Web wizard was hard-coded to "fixed names" support which generated 1 assembly per page (useful for extreme patching scenarios, but also something that generates a lot of assemblies). This could be overrided using MSBuild, but wasn't very discoverable. The Publish Web Wizard now allows developers to choose the granularity they want in the dialog -- and the default is now 1 assembly per directory (which still provides good granularity -- but a lot fewer assemblies).



    I'll go into more details about the web project system on Monday, but wanted to quickly answer the concerns I saw above.



    Hope this helps,



    Scott

Comments have been disabled for this content.