On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:59:14AM -0400, David Nalley wrote: > Are you going to support upgrades from your Betas to release (and > betaN to betaN+1)? > If the answer is no, then there is no interest on my part. It's not > better than us producing nightly builds, or highlighting jenkins > builds.
Perhaps doing a better job of highlighting nightly builds at key moments is the right answer to the problem I was trying to solve (more user testing of upgrades)? The beta idea comes with some overhead, and perhaps that overhead isn't worth the benefit (if there are other ways to achieve that goal). And that's why I floated the idea... to get reactions. > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Chip Childers > <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 03:56:36PM +0100, Daan Hoogland wrote: > >> As a relative outsider; > >> > >> any branch that is not released yet is a beta release. Why make it more > >> explicit. Wouldn't this add support burdon? Make a branch 'in beta' and > >> appoint a guard to make sure no new feartures but only fixes go in (kind of > >> how you are working right now) > > > > So we do that today. However, a "release" as a -beta will get more user > > attention eariler in our release cycle (at least that's my theory). We > > need that user attention to help us ensure that upgrades work. > > > >> > >> Daan > >> > >> > >> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > >> > >> > On Tue, May 14, 2013, at 09:41 AM, Chip Childers wrote: > >> > > As a way to get more user feedback on our major feature releases, what > >> > > does everyone think about releasing one or two -beta releases for each > >> > > major feature release? > >> > > >> > Yes to beta releases. I know that users could test at any time, but we > >> > need explicit targets for users that say "now is a good time to test > >> > this and give feedback." > >> > > >> > +1 > >> > > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > > >> > jzb > >> > -- > >> > Joe Brockmeier > >> > j...@zonker.net > >> > Twitter: @jzb > >> > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > >> > >
