On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:06:49 +0200 Andre Fischer <awf....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12.06.2013 21:32, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > > On 12/06/2013 Rob Weir wrote: > >> Something to consider for AOO 4.1 is the value of a broad public beta > >> program to solicit early feedback on builds. This could be a good > >> complement to our formal QA efforts. > > > > I totally agree that we should do so. In retrospective, it would have > > been good to do it for 4.0 too: we've still received a lot of feedback > > from the community, but the "hidden" development builds don't help if > > people are just trying to get a glimpse of the coming features. > > +1 for the beta. > > > > >> The key thing > >> is to meet the formal requirements of an Apache release, but set user > >> expectations that it is a beta. > > > > This is key, but we have several ways to do it, not necessarily > > involving a huge disclaimer like the one you put on your e-mail! > > But it's such a nice disclaimer. > > -Andre > > > > > For example, we could make the beta versions available in "archive" > > format only: just unzip it and test it, no installation. This will > > give additional guarantees that people won't overwrite their stable > > version and cannot mistake the beta for a full version. Of course, > > this doesn't test system integration, but it could be an acceptable > > trade-off. > > > > Regards, > > Andrea. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > A big, brief, very blunt disclaimer "Beta Software, not to be used for critical work" then a longer, more legal explanation might be the approach to take. -- Rory O'Farrell <ofarr...@iol.ie> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
