Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 19:06:13 +0100: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:52:39PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > I wonder if we should delay the release announcement until we can link > > to a bunch of .deb/.rpm/GUIs/* from it. This way, once we do announce@, > > we can hope for a higher proportion of readers to act about it. > > > > (I'm not proposing to change the "no official binary releases" policy; > > just to wait until downstreams have made their own binaries available) > > I don't think our own release announcement has any bearing on this. > We can just announce when we're ready. Once binaries become available > they can also announced on our lists (e.g. by replying to the release > announcement mailthread, as has often been done).
Announcing binaries on the users@ list only reaches users who subscribed to the support questions firehose. Our target audience for the alpha announcement is users who are willing to run alpha code on their wc's. I assume some of these people are on announce@ but not on users@. > If we do this, it would be good to know upfront what kind of binaries > we can expect and should wait for. And that might complicate things. That's just a synchronization problem and is easily solved. I'm more concerned that we'd need to come up with objective criteria for *which* third parties we do or don't include in our own annoucnements.
